Skip to main content

Full text of "The Trial Of William Joyce"

See other formats





THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 



THE OLD BAILEY TRIAL SERIES 

General Editor : C. E. Bechhofer Roberts 

1. Harry Dobkin 

2. Reginald Sidney Buckfield 

3. Mrs. Duncan 

4. Jones and Hulten 

5. William Joyce 


Other volumes In preparation 





WILLIAM JOYCE 






THE TRIAL OF 
WILLIAM JOYCE 

WITH SOME NOTES ON OTHER RECENT TRIALS 
FOR TREASON, ETC. 

Edited, with a Foreword, 


by 


C. E. BECHHOFER ROBERTS 


of Gray's Inn and the South-Eastern Circuit, Barrister-at-Law 



JARROLDS Publishers (LONDON) Limited 

Founded in 1770 


m 


47 Princes Gate, S.W.7 

NEW YORK • MELBOURNE 


SYDNEY 


1946 


LONDON 


NEW YORK 



THIS BOOK IS PRODUCED IN 
U»MPIXTK CONFORMITY WITH THE 

AUTHORIZED ECONOMY STANDARDS 


TO 

Frank and Lucy Whitworth 


MADE AND PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT 
TBt tuorr BTREBT PRESS 


EAST 


HARDIN 



CONTENTS 


Page 

Editor’s Foreword 9 

The Trial of William Joyce: 

First Day — Monday , Mth September , 1945 
Plea, and Opening Speech for the Prosecution . . 29 

Evidence for the Prosecution 

Page Page 

Gladys Winifred Isaac . . 38 William James Scarden . . 49 

Harold Godwin . . . . 41 Samuel Lopez Saizedo . . 53 

Albert Hunt 43 Frank Bridges . . . . 57 

Alexander Adrian Lickorish . . 48 

Defence 

Mr. Slade’s Submission to the Judge 58 

The Attorney-General’s Reply 64 

Mr. Slade’s Reply 67 

Mr. Justice Tucker’s Ruling on the Submission 67 

Opening Speech for the Defence 67 

Second Day — Tuesday , 18/A September, 1945 
Opening Speech for the Defence (continued) 75 

Evidence for the Defence 

Page Page 

Frank Holland .. 81 Bernard Reilly .. .. 94 

Edwin Quentin Joyce . . . . 85 William Yuile Forbes . . 95 

John Woodmansey .. 91 Henry Endicott Stebbings .. 96 

The Attorney-General’s Submission to the Judge 97 

Mr. Slade’s Reply Ill 

Third Day — Wednesday , 19 th September, 1945 

The Attorney-General’s Application on counts 1 and 2 120 

Mr. Slade’s Reply (continued) 121 

The Attorney-General’s Reply 133 

Mr. Justice Tucker’s Ruling 142 

Closing Speech for the Defence 142 

Closing Speech for the Prosecution 145 

Summing-Up 147 

Verdict 158 

Judgments of the House of Lords 159 



CONTENTS 


Other Recent Trials: 


(1) Jack Alcock 172 

(2) John Amery 

(3) Frank Axon 180 

(4) Norman Baillie-Stewart 180 

(5) Margaret Frances Bothamley 181 

(6) Elsa Gertrude Brietzmann 181 

(7) Thomas Haller Cooper 182 

(8) Ray Nicholas Courlander 182 

(9) Hugh Wilson Cowie 183 

(10) Frederick Arthur Croft 183 

(11) Patrick Joseph Dillion 183 

(12) Frances Dorothy Ecklersley and James Royston Clark . . 184 

(13) Benson Railton Metcalf Freeman 184 

(14) Arthur Vincent Fryer 184 

(15) William Humphrey Griffiths 185 

(16) Gerald Percy Sandys Hewitt 185 

(17) Raymond Davis Hughes 186 

(18) Reginald Arthur Humphries 186 

(19) Dennis John Leister 186 

(20) John Lingshaw 186 

(21) Francis George McLardy 187 

(22) Edwin Martin, John Galaher and George Hale . . . . 187 

(23) Alfred Vivian Minchin, Herbert George Rowlands, Ronald 

David Barker and Kenneth Edward Berry .. 188 

(24) Walter Purdy 188 

(25) Theodore John William Schurch 189 

(26) Ronald Spillman 189 

(27) Henry Alfred Symonds 190 

(28) Pearl Joyce Vardon 190 

(29) John Eric Wilson 190 

(30) Dorothy Pamela O’Grady 190 

(31) George Johnson Armstrong 191 



ILLUSTRATIONS 


Page 

Wiluam Joyce Frontispiece 

Hitler's Award to Joyce 48 

Joyce’s “Wilhelm Hansen” Passport 49 

A “British Free Corps” Pamphlet .. . . 64 

John Amery Arrested in Milan . . . . 65 

Mr. Justice Tucker 96 

Sir Hartley Shawcross 96 

Mr. G. 0. Slade 96 

Mr. Derek Curhs-Bennett 96 

Joyce’s Arrival at British Second Army Headquarters . . . . 97 
Joyce’s Passport Application, 1933 136-137 




FOREWORD 


“Propaganda” has become one of the principal weapons of modern warfare ; 
enormous importance is ascribed to it by both its producers and its recipients. 
It may be, however, that its importance has been considerably over-rated. 
For example, after the first World War (or, rather, that first portion of the 
German War which ended in 1918) the Germans complained that their defeat 
was largely due to the British leaflet propaganda which had insidiously sapped 
the morale of German civilians and recruits — a claim which gave boundless 
satisfaction to those responsible for issuing the leaflets. But, in point of fact, 
if I may speak as one who had some inside knowledge of the matter from the 
British end, this propaganda was somewhat ineffective until the closing months of 
the war: then and only then, with their military might breaking under an 
unbearable strain, did the Germans pay any real attention to it. So, too, 
it is hard to believe that the vast volume of Allied propaganda poured out 
from wireless transmitters between September, 1939, and D-day in June, 1944, 
had any but the slightest effect on German morale, civilian or military. Nor 
did the German wireless propaganda adversely affect the British war effort in 
those years. On the contrary, it provided a great deal of amusement for 
British listeners in the grim, blacked-out evenings: at its worst, it was 
unconscious humour of the highest quality, while at its best — and William 
Joyce, whose trial forms the main subject of this book, was undoubtedly the 
Germans’ most outstanding broadcaster in English — it was entertaining but 
unimpressive. 

We know, it is true, that things were different elsewhere. The broadcasts 
of Paul Ferdonnet, le trattre de Stuttgart , made a vast impression on French 
listeners in the first nine months of the war, up to the collapse of France ; and 
no one who heard it will ever seek to deny the force of the German broadcast 
campaign to the Dutch and Belgian armies during the invasion of those countries 
in the spring of 1940, with its burden, “Lay down your arms; your struggle is 
hopeless !” The truth of the matter, it seems to me, is plain enough. “Propa- 
ganda” is effective only when addressed to a wavering or already demoralised 
audience : the vast majority of Britons, who even in 1940 did not know they were 
beaten, were then and thereafter wholly unaffected by it : Joyce’s brilliance and 
all the painstaking efforts of his colleagues, German and British and American, 
in the Nazi service were wasted. But they were not overlooked: when the 
Germans cracked at last and the broadcasters began to fall into Allied hands, 
their listeners — almost subconsciously perhaps — realised what might have 
happened if the Battle of Britain had been lost ; for once the propagandists 
were taken at their own valuation and bitter retribution was demanded by 
popular opinion and by the authorities. 

I have said that Joyce was by far the best of the Nazi broadcasters in English. 
His voice and delivery were excellent; his matter was entertaining and often 
plausible and — in a service not remarkable for its intentional humour — his 
imitations of Mr. Churchill were masterly fooling. (How he achieved the 
nickname of “Lord Haw-Haw” I do not pretend to know, for there was nothing 
particularly dandyfied about his accent, though he was addicted to polysyllables. 
Possibly in the early days of his career on the German radio he was confused 
by British listeners with some other of his fellows, perhaps Baillie-Stewart, 
who also will be found later in these pages.) In the first year of the war one heard 
in every village a story, always unfounded, that in Joyce’s latest broadcast he 
had mentioned some piece of local information — e.g., that the church clock had 
stopped at ten to eleven — which could only have reached him through the 

9 



10 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


ramifications of a “Fifth Column” communicating with him from England on 
concealed transmitters. But this typical suggestibility of people uncertain of 
themselves soon weakened and disappeared altogether after the summer of 
1940, when Joyce became a source of popular delight equalled only by that 
veteran of English humour, Tommy Handley, who demonstrated once again 
that the British public — unlike the American — likes its jokes better, the more 
often they are repeated. 1 Innumerable music-hall and radio comedians brought 
down the house with a nasal cry of “Jairmany calling ! Jairmany calling !” 
Joyce became symbolical of Nazi broadcasting in English. 

His history was known to some extent, for many had met him as one of 
Sir Oswald Mosley’s Fascist following before the war who had fought with 
words and blackjacks against the temperamentally similar Communists of the 
East End. In the course of one of these fights Joyce’s right cheek was laid 
open by a razor or some other weapon. Then he had quarrelled with Mosley 
and taken a principal part in creating a National Socialist Party in London. 
His family background was said to be Irish, which seemed to explain many 
things. 

The news of his arrest in Germany in May 1945 was a sensation even in 
the midst of all the sensations of those wonderful days. It appeared that two 
British officers gathering wood for a fire near the Danish frontier had been 
accosted by a man whose voice, when he addressed them in English, they 
instantly recognised as “Haw-Haw’s” : when challenged, he tried (so it was 
said) to fight his way clear and the officers brought him down with a bullet- 
wound in the thigh. “A pity they didn’t aim a bit higher,” was the general 
comment. We heard that he had recovered and was being brought to England for 
investigation and trial as a traitor ; then at last, in June, he appeared at Bow 
Street for the preliminary hearings before a magistrate. Tenement-dwellers 
behind the court were able to give reporters and photographers facilities for 
observing him at exercise in the yard of the court : crowds waited, mostly in 
vain, for admission to the court. But what had been expected to be a com- 
paratively simple occasion suddenly turned out to be just the opposite. It was 
whispered and then repeated, that he was not an Englishman at all ; also that 
he had become a naturalised German. This last did not matter, because it is 
itself an act of high treason for a British subject to take the nationality of an 
enemy country in war-time. What did matter was that he claimed never to 
have been a British subject, but to be of United States birth and nationality. 
He was not even an Irish-American with a traditional grudge against the 
country of Cromwell and Mr. De Valera’s other political opponents; on the 
contrary, his Irish connections were, if anything, with the “Black and Tans.” 
But — and this seemed to be the only breach in his legal armour — he was in 
possession of a British passport (to which, as an American citizen, he was not 
entitled) when he went to Germany just before the outbreak of war. Did this 
fact make his subsequent behaviour treason ? 

It was a pretty legal problem, and no fewer than three Attorney-Generals 
had to consider it : first, Sir Donald Somervell of the Coalition Government, 
then Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, of the Churchill “Caretaker” Government, and, 
finally, Sir Hartley Shawcross, whose appointment was part of the silver lining 
which mitigated the dawn of the Socialist Utopia after the General Election of 
July 1945. Rumour at the Bar declared that each of these Attorney-Generals 
had heard at first with incredulity the suggestion of the Department of the 
Director of Public Prosecutions that the improper possession by an alien of a 
British passport made him liable to prosecution for high treason in respect of 
acts committed abroad ; that they had then studied the proposition with in- 

l The more often, for instance, Mr. Handley's radio charwoman, Mrs. Mopp, cried, 
“Can I do yer now, sir ?” the greater the delighted applause in the studio and a million homes, 
In modem England, it would seem, longevity is the soul <?f wit. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


11 


creasing interest, and that in the end professional repugnance had changed to 
enthusiasm. 

Meanwhile the senior Metropolitan magistrate, Sir Bertrand Watson, granted 
Joyce legal aid, whereby he secured the services of a highly experienced solicitor, 
Mr. C. B. V. Head, of the firm of Ludlow & Co., which has its offices adjacent 
to Bow Street. On 25th June, Mr. L. A. Byrne, senior Treasury Counsel at the 
Old Bailey 1 , opened the case against Joyce at the magistrate’s court with the 
assistance of Mr. H. A. K. Morgan 2 of the Director’s department. He set out 
that the accused man held a British passport, issued in London, from 1933 to 
1940 and that, when applying for its issue and subsequent renewals, he described 
himself as a British subject by birth, bom at Galway in Ireland: prima facie, 
therefore, Joyce was a British subject. However, said Mr. Byrne, when Joyce 
was arrested in Germany, he announced that he was American-born, and a 
New York birth-certificate in his possession confirmed this. The evidence for 
the Prosecution was then taken down for use at the trial. 

Mr. Head then raised the question whether there was any case for Joyce to 
answer, if indeed he were an American subject — or had been, prior to his 
German naturalisation. The only people, Mr. Head argued, who can commit 
treason are those who owe allegiance to the Crown, namely, (a) British 
subjects by birth ; (b) the children of British subjects born abroad ; (c) naturalised 
British subjects, and ( d ) aliens actually resident in the King’s realm. And 
Joyce, said Mr. Head, was none of these; the Prosecution had neither proved, 
nor even attempted to prove, that his father was a British subject when Joyce 
was born in New York in 1906. 

Replying briefly — for it was certain that the magistrate would not attempt 
to decide such an issue — Mr. Byrne pointed out that the prisoner had always 
described himself to the Passport Office as a British subject, and was indeed 
so described when he took out his German naturalisation papers ; there was no 
evidence as yet that his father was ever a naturalised American citizen. All 
the proved evidence so far before the court showed Joyce to be a British subject. 
The magistrate then committed him to take his trial for high treason at the 
forthcoming sessions at the Old Bailey. 

Mr. Head now briefed a strong team of counsel for the Defence. To lead 
it he chose Mr. G. O. Slade, K.C., 3 who had sprung to the top of the tree during 
the past few years in the civil courts and, as well, in criminal cases which turned 
on complicated points of law, such as were provided by the innumerable and 
often contradictory administrative orders of the war departments. Then came 
Mr. Derek Curtis-Bennett, K.C., 4 son of the famous Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett ; 
like his father, he had spent his successful professional career almost exclusively 
in the criminal courts. He had become a “silk” in 1943, on the same day as 
Mr. Slade. And, as junior to them, Mr. James Burge, 6 another outstanding 
criminal advocate from Mr. Curtis-Bennett’s chambers, was briefed. On the 
Prosecution side Mr. Byrne — who, incidentally, was made a Judge before the 
proceedings ended — was to be assisted by Mr. Gerald Howard,* and it was 
understood that they would be led at the Old Bailey by whichever Attorney- 
General should be in office after the forthcoming Election. 

At the police-court, as indeed to the end of his long ordeal, Joyce showed 

J See The Trial of Harry Dobkin, p. 13, footnote. Mr. Byrne was raised to the Bench 
later in the year. 

•Called to the Bar (Middle Temple), 1912; senior legal assistant to the Department of 
the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

•Called (Middle Temple), 1921 ; K.C., 1943; Chancellor of the diocese of Chelmsford; 
Recorder or Tenterden. 

•Called (Middle Temple), 1926; K.C., 1943; Recorder of Guildford. 

•Called (Inner Temple), 1932; counsel to the Post Office at the Central Criminal Court. 

•Sec The Trial of Harry Dobkin , p. 13, footnote. 



12 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


courage and composure. It should be remembered in his favour that he was 
not a man who had sold himself to Germany for gain or to escape the discomforts 
of a prison-camp, as had some if not all of the other individuals whose fate 
will be briefly chronicled in these pages. Joyce, there is no reason to doubt, 
was a genuine Fascist and considered that Britain would benefit by a totalitarian 
regime on Nazi lines, which would eradicate Capitalism, Communism, Semitism 
and all the other bugbears of his aggressive creed. When war seemed certain, 
he crossed to Germany to serve the cause in which he believed : it must have 
startled him when Hitler and Soviet Russia then entered in a pact of friendship, 
but at least he cannot have credited the Germans with sincerity. This difficulty, 
in any event, was solved for him when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. 

Joyce’s sense of humour, always evident if not always agreeable to British 
listeners in his broadcasts, did not desert him even at the worst moments. It 
is said that on one occasion when his legal advisers visited him at the London 
jail where he was kept prior to the trial (and where incidentally four prisoners 
were punished for throwing patriotic insults and missiles at him from their 
cell-windows when he was at exercise), the question was discussed whether he 
should exercise his right to challenge any Jewish jurors who might be called 
to try him at the Old Bailey. 

“How does one know them ?” Joyce asked. 

“Oh, when they take the oath they put on a hat or put their hand on their 
head,” he was told. 

“I see,” said Joyce with a “dead-pan” face. “Well, if six of them do it, 
wouldn’t it be a good idea if I took the oath the same way ?” 

An application was made by the Defence at the opening of the Old Bailey 
sessions in July for an adjournment, in order that certain important evidence 
might be brought from the United States. With the agreement of the Prosecution, 
the application was granted and the trial went over to the September sessions, 
when it began on Monday, the 17th September, 1945, before Mr. Juctice Tucker, 1 
one of the younger King’s Bench Judges. By virtue of the Treason Act, 1945 
(which received the Royal Assent on the 15th June, the day before Joyce was 
flown from Brussels to England) the procedure in trials for treason was assimilated 
to that in murder trials ; three Judges were no longer required to sit, as had been 
the old practice. Joyce’s trial was the first under the new Act. As was 
anticipated, Sir Hartley Shawcross, the new Attorney-General, appeared to 
lead Mr. Byrne and Mr. Gerald Howard for the Prosecution. 

I ought to set out here the particulars of the indictment for high treason which 
the Clerk of the Court read to Joyce and the jury, because much of what follows 
will be more easily comprehended if the reader notes the vital difference in 
the dates between the first two counts on the one hand, and the third count on 
the other. Here they are : 

“The particulars in the first count are that on the 18th September, 1939, 
and on other days between that day and the 29th May, 1945 [i.e. the day of 
Joyce’s arrest] you, being a person owing allegiance to our lord the King, and 
while a war was being carried on by the German Realm against our King, 
did traitorously adhere to the King’s enemies in parts beyond the seas — that is 
to say, in Germany — by broadcasting propaganda. 

“In a second count of the same indictment it is charged that you, on the 26th 
September, 1 940, being a person owing allegiance as in the other count, adhered 
to the King’s enemies 6y purporting to become naturalised as a subject of 
Germany. 

“And in a third count the particulars are the same as in the first count, that 
is to say, you are charged with broadcasting propaganda, but the dates are 

‘Sir Frederick Tucker; called (Inner Temple), 1914; K.C., 1933; Recorder of 
Southampton, 1936-7; raised to the Bench, 1937; Lord Justice of Appeal, 1945 (autumn). 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 13 

different, and the dates in this case are the 18th September, 1939, and on days 
between that day and the 2nd July, 1940.” 

At risk of anticipating what will be more appositely set out hereafter, let me 
for a moment enlarge on the significance of the three counts. For convenience, 
I will start with the second. It charged Joyce with treason in that he became 
a naturalised German on the 26th September, 1940, and, as I have already 
pointed out, it is established law that for a British subject to naturalise himself 
in a foreign country at a time when it is at war with Britain constitutes treason. 
But, of course, it was now known that a basic question in this trial would be 
whether Joyce ever had been a British subject : if he had not, then — leaving 
aside all other questions about his allegiance — he clearly could not commit this 
particular offence. (Some people, by the way, learning that Joyce would argue 
that he was always an American citizen until he became a naturalised German, 
had suggested that a simple way out of all legal tangles over here would be 
to hand him over to the Americans to deal with for treason against the United 
States. But this would not have worked, because the United States did not come 
into the war until December, 1941 : so that all Joyce’s broadcasts against the 
Allies had been given either at a time when Germany was ostensibly at peace 
with America or after he had become — during that time of peace — a German 
subject.) 

Now for the first and third counts. It will be seen that they are identical, 
except for the final date mentioned. The first count charged him with broad- 
casting for Germany between the 18th September, 1939, when (as was to be 
shown) he entered the Reich broadcasting service, and the 29th May, 1945, 
when he was arrested. But the third count referred only to a period between 
September, 1939, and the 2nd July, 1940, when his British passport expired . 
In other words, the first count assumed that he was and had always been a British 
subject — the German naturalisation, of course, being treated as a nullity — while 
the third count had been framed on the assumption that he was “a person owing 
allegiance to our lord the King” so long as — and only so long as — he held a 
British passport. Which last matter, as we shall see, was destined to become 
the pivot of the trial. 

It appeared too that the Prosecution was prepared for other eventualities 
also, for, Joyce having pleaded Not Guilty to the whole of this indictment, the 
Clerk began to read a second indictment against him. The Judge stopped this, 
and people wondered what was being suppressed. The explanation, which the 
Judge gave the jury later on, was quite simple. The second indictment had been 
framed under the Treachery Act of 1940, a curiously named piece of legislation 
designed, inter alia , to punish “any person” (i.e., British or alien) who “with 
intent to help the enemy” does any act during war-time designed to assist the 
enemy within the United Kingdom. This Act had indeed been invoked on 
several occasions during the war against Germans who clandestinely entered 
England as spies ; one must suppose that the Prosecution were bringing charges 
under it against Joyce as a precaution lest he escaped from the first indictment on 
the technical issue of his allegiance; and I assume — thoiigh I do not pretend to 
know — that the intention was to argue that, Joyce’s broadcasts having been 
heard in Britain through the medium of wireless receiving-sets there, they thus 
became acts committed “in the United Kingdom.” Whether the Prosecution 
could have succeeded in such a submission we cannot know, for in the event 
it was never argued and the,second indictment shelved. 

The Attorney-General then opened the case for the Prosecution. He began 
with the pious hope that the jury would not permit themselves to be prejudiced 
against Joyce because of what they knew or had heard about his antecedents, 
his attitude towards this country during the war, and his notorious broadcasts 
during the past six years. They were to “try this man according to the law. 



14 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, on the evidence ; unprejudiced by any 
preconceived notions, coldly, dispassionately.” It must seem rather a tall 
order to ask so much from any jury fresh from the ordeals of war; but in fact 
any twelve individuals — there are always twelve where a capital charge is 
concerned, even nowadays — set down in the strange and impressive atmosphere 
of the Old Bailey, with the Judge’s majestic authority to guide them, may be 
trusted to fulfil their duty. 

The Attorney set out the facts which the Prosecution would seek to prove. 
In so doing, he touched on the legal questions involved, which, by this time, 
every lawyer in court knew to be the crux of the trial. He told the jury what 
high treason meant — a simple enough matter where a prisoner of undisputed 
British nationality is concerned — and went on to extend his explanation to 
cover the case of Joyce, on whose behalf, as was well known, it was going to be 
argued that he was an alien, owing no allegiance to the Crown. “Protection 
draws allegiance,” the Attorney quoted, “and allegiance draws protection”: 
if a man claims the protection of the Crown, then he must be held to owe a 
corresponding duty of allegiance to it. Any question of law which might 
arise. Sir Hartley added, would be decided by the Judge, whose function it was 
to decide questions of law, just as the jury were there to decide questions of fact ; 
but, in the submission of the Prosecution, if an alien obtained a British passport 
and went abroad with it, he “clothed himself with the status of a British subject” 
and “enveloped himself in the Union Jack” — in that he became entitled to the 
protection of the King’s Consular and other representatives abroad or (in an 
enemy country) of the ‘protecting power’ — and, in consequence, he “was 
required to comport and demean himself as a loyal British subject.” 

Now, asked Sir Hartley, what was Joyce’s nationality ? In a statement which 
the prisoner made shortly after his arrest in Germany, he declared that he was 
bom in America of an Irish father and an English mother, both of whom had 
been naturalised as American citizens before his birth; if this were so, the 
Attorney conceded, it would make Joyce an American citizen too. But in 
1922, when he was sixteen years old, Joyce wrote a letter to the London 
University Officers’ Training Corps in which he stated that he was born in 
America of British parents — with not a word about their naturalisation as 
Americans — and insisted that “I am in no way connected with the United 
States of America, against whom, as against all other nations, I am prepared to 
draw the sword in British interests.” Eleven years later he formally applied 
to the Passport Office in London for a British passport, and in his application 
he described himself as “a British subject by birth, having been born at Rutledge 
Terrace, Galway, Ireland.” He was issued with a passport, and, five years later 
again, in September 1938, applied for a year’s renewal of it, once more 
describing himself as a “British subject by birth” ; and he did precisely the same 
again in August 1939. Renewals of the passport were granted as a result of 
these applications, and it was with this passport that Joyce went abroad — 
presumably to Germany — just before the outbreak of hostilities. 

“That, in the submission of the Prosecution, is a vital fact of this case,” 
said the Attorney-General. “Whether the statement that he was bom in 
Ireland was true or not, whether the statement that he was a British subject 
(whether by birth in Ireland, or by birth in America of British parents) was true 
or not, the submission of the Crown is that, so long as a passport continued to 
be valid, so long as it was held by him, it placed him ... in exactly the same 
position under the protection of the British Crown as would be any other 
British subject.” And, he repeated, “Protection draws allegiance.” But 
what did Joyce do? Documents found in his possession showed that he 
entered the service of the German broadcasting authorities, in the English- 

r Jring propaganda section, on the 18th September, 1939, a fortnight after 
beginning of the war. Evidence would be called that he had been heard 



THB TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


15 


broadcasting very shortly after that date, when he had assured listeners, quite 
falsely, that Dover and Folkestone had been destroyed by German bombing. 
Sir Hartley added that the jury would probably have little doubt “that it was 
because he was a British subject that he had his great value” to the Germans. 

This last suggestion is rather hard to follow. Surely, one may think, Joyce’s 
value to the enemy, apart from his undoubted skill and wit as a commentator, 
was his perfect command of English rather than his national status ? It is 
quite true that, in the case of John Amery, who also broadcast for the Germans — 
and who was, technically, a very inferior performer — the chief asset was his 
family connection with a member of the British Government. But who in 
England cared a rap whether “Lord Haw-Haw” was a British subject or not, 
especially when for a long time his identity was not disclosed by the Germans ? 
(The Attorney’s suggestion must have shocked the war-time controllers of the 
British propaganda broadcasts to Germany, because they had apparently the 
cricket-pavilion idea that it was unsporting — or that the Germans would think 
it unsporting — if German nationals were used to broadcast to their own people. 
So throughout the war men of unimpeachable British nationality and with 
unmistakable British accents broadcast in German to the Germans, who may 
have regarded them with the same condescending derision as we did the 
numerous Germans who lectured us in Teutonic English over the air. Only 
towards the very end were a group of German refugees allowed to broadcast 
propaganda in their own language on a special wavelength ; they, very naughtily 
— perhaps not being cricketers — seemed to be likely to get right under the 
Germans’ hide with their German slang and German idioms and general under- 
standing of the German mentality. 1 But it may well be that, as I said above, 
broadcast propaganda tends to be effective when those to whom it is directed 
are already half-beaten.) 

Next the jury were told by the Attorney-General of Joyce’s rise in the Reich 
broadcasting service, culminating with the award to him by Hitler in September 
1944 of a Cross of War-Merit of the First Class ! On the 29th May, 1945, he was 
arrested near Flensburg with various documents in his possession, including a 
German passport; and he made a long, signed statement to a British police 
officer, which the Attorney read out. It contained, for the first time, the sug- 
gestion that his parents were naturalised United States citizens at his birth, and 
went on to explain why he had gone to Germany in 1 939. He had always been 
a right-wing Conservative in politics, said Joyce, and later had been attracted 
by Fascist ideals; in the ’thirties he felt that the British Government’s policy 
was leading to economic ruin and the break-up of the Empire, whereas Hitler’s 
programme in Germany was constructive. “One of my dominant beliefs,” 
so ran a passage in the document, “was that a war between Britain and Germany 
would be a tragedy, the effects of which Britain and the British Empire would 
not survive, and I considered that a grossly disproportionate influence was 
exerted on British policy by the Jews, who had their reasons for hating National 
Socialist Germany.” So, when Danzig flared up, “I decided to leave the country, 
since I did not wish to play the part of a conscientious objector and since I 
supposed that in Germany I should have the opportunity to express and pro- 
pagate views the expression of which would be forbidden in Britain during the 
war.” 

One pauses to comment that the last sentence rings false, though all the rest 
— including that odd inferiority-complex attack on the Jews — seems genuine 
enough. It is noteworthy that, in a book published in Germany in 1940, 
Ddmmerung iiber England (“Twilight over England”), Joyce wrote, “I came to 

*Thcy bad a pleasing device of sending messages, ostensibly from bombed German towns, 
to named members of the German forces, and assuring them with every show of sympathy 
that, though their homes had been utterly destroyed in the latest British bombing raid, their 
families were comparatively unharmed — except for a few lost limbs, etc., etc. 



16 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Germany at the end of August, 1939, in order to help Germany to emerge 
victorious from the war.” He can scarcely have been such a fool as to suppose 
that the Germans would permit him to preach Anglo-German reconciliation 
on the air, though it is not impossible that Hitler may at one time have con- 
templated permitting a Fascist or Nazi Britain to escape the worst fate which 
his extremists wished to mete out to the hated islanders. 

As if, however, to rebut his own suggestion, Joyce continued his statement 
by saying that, realising that he had forfeited any moral right to return to England, 
he became naturalised in Germany with the intention of making it his permanent 
home. But, he insisted, he had still clung to the hope of Anglo-German 
understanding, though he realised after America and Russia entered the war 
that Germany would probably be beaten. He ended that he did not regard 
himself as a traitor or guilty of any “underhand or deceitful act against Britain” : 
no final judgment should be passed on his actions “until it is seen whether 
Britain can win the peace.” He added — and it is not to his discredit — that his 
wife, whatever she might say to the contrary, had accompanied him to Germany 
entirely under his influence. 

After reading this statement, the Attorney-General briefly closed his speech. 
He told the jury that, if they decided that Joyce was a British subject throughout 
his career in Germany, they should convict him on the first two counts of the 
indictment. But if it transpired — and it was pretty obvious already that Sir 
Hartley knew that the facts would be against him on the question of Joyce’s 
nationality — that the prisoner had never been a Bristish subject, then the 
Prosecution invited the Judge to rule (as a matter of law) that the holding of 
a British passport up to July, 1940, entailed Joyce’s allegiance to the King, and 
the jury to say (as a matter of fact) that Joyce’s actions between September, 1939, 
and that date were in traitorous breach of his allegiance. 

The first Prosecution witness was called for Mr. Byrne to examine in chief. 
She was a Miss Isaac from London University, and she produced from its 
archives the letter sent by Joyce to its O.T.C. in 1922. As we know, he wrote 
rather vaguely therein of his parentage, and professed his attachment to British 
interests as against all other nations. One passage in it must have shocked 
certain Southern Irishmen who, before the trial, had hinted at their intention of 
setting Joyce up as a martyr to Erin (and who, incidentally, had eagerly inquired 
whether any of his defending counsel were of Irish descent). Joyce said, “I 
have served with the irregular forces of the Crown in an Intelligence capacity 
against the Irish guerillas.” As he was only sixteen at the time, it seems unlikely 
that he afforded much assistance to the “Black and Tans”; still, after this, 
one heard no more keening for him from Irish or Irish-American throats. 

Cross-examining Miss Isaac, Mr. Slade obtained from her a copy of a 
letter sent to Michael Joyce, the prisoner’s father, by the officer commanding 
the O.T.C., which asked whether the father had been naturalised in the United 
States ; and the reply in which Michael Joyce avoided answering this question 
but stated that his son “was born in America. I was born in Ireland, his mother 
was bom in England. We are all British and not American citizens.” This last 
denial (which was soon to be proved untrue) did not, to be sure, help Mr. Slade’s 
case, but he wanted the letter in court in order to compare thus father’s writing 
in it with that in other documents to be produced later. 

Next came an official from the Passport Office in London, who produced 
Joyce’s applications for a passport and its renewals in 1933, 1938 and 1939. 
On each document Joyce declared himself to be a “British subject by birth.” 
Mr. Howard, who took this witness for the Prosecution, formally called on the 
Defence to produce Joyce’s British passport; it was not forthcoming — pre- 
sumably Joyce had destroyed it or handed it in to the Germans years before — 
so the witness was allowed to put in a specimen passport similar to that which 
had been issued to the prisoner. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


17 


The verbiage of its first page was read out, whereby Sir John Simon, the 
then Foreign Secretary, did “request and require in the Name of His Majesty 
all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let 
or hindrance, and to afford him every assistance and protection of which he 
may stand in need.” It is one of the ironies of this trial that, for most English- 
men, the obtaining of a passport has never been so much an aid to unrestricted 
travel in foreign countries— after all, one has usually to apply for special visas 
to enter them — as an indispensable preliminary to being allowed to leave the 
United Kingdom, and, even so, except in times of complete tranquillity, one 
may need also to secure an exit permit and a special endorsement permitting 
one to go to the desired destination. 1 well remember travelling round the 
world as a youth before the 1914 war without any sort of passport; I doubt 
if I was less well “enveloped in the Union Jack” for its absence. However, 
we live in a progressive civilisation and must learn to put up with it. 

The first question which Mr. Slade asked this witness was very pertinent. 
“Am I right,” he asked, “in saying that one year is the minimum period for 
which a passport can be renewed ?” 

The point of this was that, assuming Joyce only wanted the passport 
renewed in August 1939, in order to leave England and reach Germany, he would 
of necessity have to apply for a whole year’s renewal. 

The witness at first replied that a passport could be renewed for less than a 
year, but he eventually agreed that in practice a year was the minimum : and 
he admitted that the renewal-form bore the words, “Passports may be renewed 
for any consecutive period of one to five years.” (Had the form been worded 
“Passports may be renewed for any consecutive period up to five years,” it may 
be that Joyce would have asked for merely a week's or a fortnight’s extension. 
In that case, count 3 would have had no force against him, because the passport 
would have lapsed before he entered the German broadcasting service on the 
18th September. But, unfortunately for him, this was not the case). 

Mr. Byrne then called a Detective Inspector from the Special Branch at 
Scotland Yard who had heard Joyce speak for the British Fascists before the 
war and who, being at Folkestone in the winter of 1939, recognised Joyce’s 
voice coming over the wireless from Germany and announcing that Dover and 
Folkestone had been bombed to destruction. He added that he had also 
heard Joyce on the air frequently after that time. The officer put in his verbatim 
transcript of some of Joyce’s later broadcasts up to 1943. Readers will now 
appreciate that the 1939 Dover-Folkestone broadcast was vital, because it fell 
within the time-limit of count 3 of the indictment ; whereas the later broadcasts 
were relevant only to counts 1 and 2, the importance of which was rapidly 
receding. So Mr. Slade did not bother to cross-examine about these; he 
confined himself to challenging the accuracy of the Inspector’s notes about 
the Dover-Folkestone broadcast, and it seemed from his questions that Joyce 
denied having made it. For one thing, Mr. Slade suggested, its contents were 
absurd; no bombs had fallen in England at all up to that time, and Dover 
and Folkestone were unscathed. However, the witness stuck to his guns and 
the Attorney-General, re-examining him, made him agree that English-speaking 
listeners outside the Dover-Folkestone area might well have believed the false 
news and been perturbed by it. 

Captain Lickorish, one of the Army officers who arrested Joyce, told how 
he and a friend had come upon him in a wood near Flensburg on the 28th May, 
1945. They had instantly recognised the voice and the other officer asked, 
“You wouldn’t be William Joyce, would you ?” 

Joyce had then reached towards his pocket, whereupon the other officer 
shot him in the leg. Presumably Joyce was reaching not for a weapon — for he 
was unarmed — but for a false German passport he carried* for, as he fell, he 
said (according to this witness), “My name is Fritz Hansen.” 



18 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

True the passport was in the name of “Wilhelm Hansen” either Joyce 
forgot this, or the witness’s hearing was at fault— but, as Joyce was also carrying 
a German travel permit made out in his true name, he was promptly identified 
and handed into military custody. . - . r - 

There followed an officer from the Intelligence Corps, who had found a 
German Broadcasting Company’s receipt, signed by Joyce, at the radio station 
in Luxembourg a fortnight before the arrest. This witness also had taken the 
long signed statement from Joyce to which I have already referred, and it was 
now read to the court. He went on to produce a copy of an American birth- 
certificate which stated that a William Joyce — “Sex: Male. Colour! White — — 
was born in the city of New York on the 24th April, 1906; as well as various 
German official documents, signed by Joyce and relating to his employment 
and status in Germany during the war. 

After the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Samuel Salzedo was called into the 
witness-box. Mr. Salzedo, with his angular features and mop of white hair 
is a familiar figure in English courts, civil and criminal alike, for he happens 
to be an interpreter and translator of quite exceptional ability. English, French, 
German, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese and I know 
not how many other languages pour from his lips correctly and without hesita- 
tion : I have known no linguist to compare with him, with the possible exception 
of the late Harold Williams, once Foreign Editor of The Times. (Outside the 
courts Mr. Salzedo adds to his picturesqueness by wearing a romantic cape and, 
sometimes, carrying a violin or two. He has also written a primer on astronomy 
in Basic English.) On the present occasion he produced translations he had made 
of the German documents already mentioned and, with scarcely a shudder at 
the brutal Englishing of German words and names by counsel, explained 
certain matters in them. 

First of all the “Hansen” passport was put in, issued at Hamburg in 
November, 1944, when Joyce presumably decided that events on the various 
war-fronts made it advisable for him to efface himself under a new name. 
Even so, the German authorities seem characteristically to have insisted on 
some degree of accuracy, for “Wilhelm Hansen” was stated to have been born 
in Galway in 1906 (though on the 11th March, not the 24th April, which was 
Joyce’s real birthday) ; one would have thought that they might have allowed 
him to sink his old identity completely. 

Next came his Wehrpass — his military passport — which gave correctly his 
name, birthplace (New York), parentage and occupation: significantly enough, 
it described him as “German, formerly English.” 

Then Mr. Salzedo passed on to the Luxembourg receipt and to another 
document, dated the 26th June, 1942, appointing Joyce chief commentator on 
the German radio for “the group of countries, ‘England.’ ” In this, by the way, 
another pseudonym appeared, “Wilhelm Frohlich”; this, in English, would be 
“William Joyous” and may therefore be regarded as a piece of German humour. 
Next came a paper, signed by Hitler, which announced the award of a Cross 
of War-Merit of the First Class to “Chief Commentator William Joyce” on the 
1st September, 1944. His Volkssturm (Home Guard) card was then produced 
and, later, his Work Book, which contained the damning entry that he had 
entered the German broadcasting service in September, 1939. (This was 
highly important in regard to count 3 of the indictment.) Mr. Slade had no 
questions to put to Mr. Salzedo in cross-examination ; nobody can ever doubt 
the latter’s competence as a translator, and the documents spoke for themselves. 

Chief Inspector Bridges gave formal evidence of charging the prisoner with 
high treason on his arrival in England, and of Joyce’s reply, “Yes, thank you.” 
(Presumably the Chief Inspector had, as usual, asked Joyce if he understood the 
charge.) And so the case for the Prosecution was closed. 

Then Mr. Slade went into action. He led off by submitting to the Judge 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


19 


that there was no case at all to go to the jury. Before any offence of treason, 
he argued, could be imputed to Joyce— and certainly so far as counts 1 and 2 
were concerned — the Prosecution must prove that he was or had been a British 
subject : only in that event could he be said to have broken his allegiance to the 
Crown by acts committed abroad, in Germany. The Prosecution, Mr. Slade 
said, had failed to prove Joyce a British subject: could they not easily have 
produced his birth-certificate if he had really been bom in Galway ? The fact 
that he had sometimes claimed to have been bom in Galway was immaterial : 
first, such a claim could only be based on hearsay, and, secondly, even if it 
were a deliberate lie made in order to obtain a passport, it still did not affect 
Joyce’s true position — for “ nationality is a matter of status ; it is not a question 
of contract In other words, Mr. Slade went on, a Chinaman cannot make 
himself a British subject by screaming from the housetops that he is one, nor 
does he become a British subject by improperly obtaining a British passport. 
A man either is or is not a British subject; and the Prosecution had signally 
failed to prove that Joyce was one. 

Mr. Slade declared that, until the Attorney-General opened the case, the 
Defence had not appreciated that the Prosecution sought to draw a distinction 
between count 3 and the other two counts of the indictment. Anyhow, he said, 
the distinction led nowhere, because all legal authority (except for one solitary 
passage in an old book) insisted that an alien who was outside the King’s 
dominions owed no sort of allegiance to the Crown. 

The Judge commented on this that, whatever might eventually prove to be 
Joyce’s nationality at the material times, there was some evidence at the moment 
before the court — in the written applications to the Passport Office and in some 
of the German documents — that he was a British subject. There was as yet no 
evidence to the contrary: true, a New York birth-certificate had been produced, 
but nobody had yet proved that it referred to the prisoner. 

In his turn the Attorney-General, replying to Mr. Slade’s submission, 
pointed out that, even if the birth-certificate did turn out to be the prisoner’s, 
it did not necessarily show him to be an American citizen ; if his father were a 
British subject when Joyce was bom, then Joyce too would be one. The 
Attorney denied that the onus here was on the Prosecution to prove the prisoner’s 
British nationality ; prima facie evidence had been called to show that he was 
British, and it was for the Defence to shake this, if they could. 

Both counsel quoted authorities to support their contentions — it was rather 
like a preliminary canter before the real struggle — but the Judge cut them short 
by ruling that “At the present stage there is some evidence which, if uncon- 
tradicted, would entitle the jury to come to the conclusion that this man was a 
British subject.’’ Which meant that the Defence must call rebutting evidence. 

Mr. Slade, therefore, opened his case. He told the court that he was going 
to produce witnesses who would prove conclusively that Joyce was bom in 
New York of parents who were already naturalised Americans : indeed, when 
they came to England during the last war, they were listed by the British police 
as aliens. Unfortunately, both parents had now died — the father in 1941, and 
the mother in 1944 — and, though an uncle was alive in America, it would be 
undesirable to ask to adjourn the trial again for his attendance: still, even 
without the uncle, Mr. Slade said, he was confident that he could prove the 
parents’ United States naturalisation. He added (doubtless to the disappoint- 
ifient of the jury and of newspaper-readers all over the world) that he did not 
propose to call his client to give evidence, because Joyce “could not possibly 
give you any evidence of when or where he was bom’’ — his knowledge of that 
remote event must of necessity be the merest hearsay — and “still less can he 
give you any evidence of when his father was naturalised,’’ which was some 
years before Joyce was bom. Finally, with regard to count 3, Mr. Slade 
Insisted that the question whether the renewal of his British passport for a year 



20 THS TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

from August 1939 to July 1940 carried with it a duty of allegiance towards the 
Crown “is, as I understand it, a pure question of law,” which was for the Judge 
to decide and on which he would be addressed in due course. 

The court had adjourned half-way through this speech and, when Mr. Slade 
ended it next morning, the Defence called their first witness. He was a deaf 
old gentleman named Holland, who had known the Joyce family in New York 
in the early years of this century. He said that Michael Joyce, the father, always 
claimed to be a naturalised American citizen. (The Attorney formally objected 
that this evidence was inadmissible as being hearsay— which, strictly speaking, 
it W as— but the Judge admitted it. In murder or treason trials all reasonable 
latitude is always accorded to the Defence; besides, in this instance, the Judge 
probably felt that the sooner the matter was cleared up, the better.) Mr. 
Holland identified the prisoner as Michael Joyce’s eldest son, whom he had 
known all his life. Incidentally, the witness had himself become naturalised in 
the United States and was eager to tell the court how distressfully such “aliens” 
are treated by the British police in war-time : he was headed off this irrelevancy. 

It was significant that the Attorney-General did not cross-examine him. 
This meant that the Prosecution could not dispute the truth of his statements. 

Then a Mr. Quentin Joyce, a younger brother of the prisoner, entered the 
box. He was asked by Mr. Slade what his father said about his nationality. 
Again the Attorney-General objected, and after a short legal squabble the 
Defence shelved this matter temporarily. The witness then declared that he 
had seen his father bum an American passport a few years ago, and he identified 
his father’s signature and handwriting on various documents. Mr. Slade 
returned to the first point : he submitted to the Judge that the father’s statements 
about his nationality might be put in evidence, because it is a rule of law that 
dead men’s statements “against interest’’ may be admitted. It was certainly 
against the father’s interest, Mr. Slade said, to declare himself an American 
citizen in England, because, among other things, he would as an alien be dis- 
qualified from voting in an election, and so on. The Attorney-General com- 
mented shrewdly that it came strangely from the Defence in this trial to say that 
“a declaration of a man that he is not of British nationality is a declaration 
against his interest’’ (it being, after all, Joyce’s main hope of escaping conviction), 
but he did not press his point and the Judge allowed the evidence to be given. 
The witness formally stated that his father had frequently declared himself to be 
a naturalised American. 

This witness too was not cross-examined by the Prosecution, but Mr. Slade 
was taking no chances. He called two police officers, one from Lancashire, 
the other from Ireland, who had chivied the Joyces as aliens during the first war. 
Again the Prosecution did not cross-examine. A handwriting expert declared 
that the signatures of Joyce’s father on various documents which had been 
put in were all written by the same man. Mr. Slade had cunningly asked one 
of the Prosecution witnesses if he really professed to be able to identify a man’s 
signatures when there was an interval of many years between documents on 
which they appeared; the witness having declared that there was no difficulty 
at all, Mr. Slade was now able to use that statement to confirm his own 
witnesses’ claims. The last witness for the Defence was the First Secretary 
of the United States Embassy in London, who deposed that, if Joyce’s parents 
wer £J laturalised i ^ jner * cans at his birth, he was ipso facto an American citizen. 

The Judge now asked the Attorney-General if, having heard the Defence 
witnesses, the Prosecution any longer sought to suggest that Joyce was a 
British subject. The Attorney said they did not, and the Judge remarked, “I 
think everybody must agree that the evidence which has been tendered is really 
overwhelming.” 

And so counts 1 and 2— which, be it remembered, charged Joyce with 
broadcasting for the Germans from 1939 till his arrest, and with purporting 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


21 


to become a naturalised German subject in September 1940 — virtually vanished 
from the case. It was now clear that he was not guilty on either count, because 
he was not a British subject at the material times, or indeed at any time. (Next 
morning, by the way, the Attorney made the position doubly clear by asking 
that the wording of those two counts be amended by substituting “being a 
British subject” for the vaguer phrase, “being a person owing allegiance to the 
Crown.” No more, then, was heard of counts 1 and 2 except when the Judge 
in his summing-up formally directed the jury to acquit Joyce on them.) 

Then the Judge invited the Attorney-General to submit his case with regard 
to count 3, in order that Mr. Slade might know what arguments he had to meet. 
And the real struggle began. 

The Prosecution, as I have said, were setting up a proposition which had never 
before been established in an English (or, so far as I know, any other) court 
of law, namely, that an alien who obtains a British passport, however improperly, 
and goes abroad with it remains, so long as it remains valid, in such a relation- 
ship of allegiance to the Crown that, if he assists the King’s enemies, he is 
committing high treason. If the Attorney-General could now show that this 
proposition was in line with the English Common Law (that is to say, was 
covered by legal authority throughout the centuries) even though it had never 
before been laid down in terms, then the Judge could hold that it was sound. 
Whereas the Defence, of course, relied on the narrower proposition, for which 
there was certainly much authority, that an alien’s allegiance to the Crown 
persists so long, and so long only, as he remains actually resident in the King’s 
dominions. If the Defence proposition was correct, then Joyce would be 
acquitted ; if, on the other hand, the Prosecution could establish that he owed 
allegiance to the King until his passport expired in July, 1940, then the jury 
would be asked to decide upon his guilt. 

Both sides were armed with reports of cases going back three hundred years 
and, as well, with legal textbooks — Coke, Blackstone and so on — of acknow- 
ledged authority. The Attorney and Mr. Slade between them covered the 
whole field, quoting not only from the cases and books which were in their 
favour but from those which seemed to be against them, seeking, of course, 
in the latter case to show that the decisions and dicta did not really settle the 
point at issue. I do not propose here to do more than very briefly summarise 
their main arguments. The reader will find the full text of their speeches 
on later pages and, while I do not pretend that it is all light reading, there is 
really nothing in it which cannot be followed and understood by anybody. 
The ten men and two women in the jury-box certainly found the contest of 
enthralling interest, knowing too as they did that a man’s life might depend 
on its outcome. Fortunately both advocates are masters of clarity and con- 
ciseness : more ponderous or less skilful members of the Bar — especially in the 
last century — might have made the trial a nightmare of prolixity. 

Here, then, is a short and necessarily inadequate summary of the Attorney- 
General’s main arguments, which he now submitted to the Judge : — 

1. Protection and allegiance are reciprocal. “Protection draws allegiance, 
and allegiance draws protection.” 

2. An alien who is resident in England admittedly owes allegiance to the 
Crown, since he lives here under its protection. It is also established law that, 
if such an alien goes abroad temporarily but leaves his family and effects here 
in the protection of the Crown, his allegiance continues during his temporary 
absence. 

(When the Attorney remarked that Joyce had applied for his passport as 
being for “holiday touring,” which suggested that he meant to return to England 
— and would, indeed, be entitled to return — the Judge suggested that Joyce’s 
intentions would be a matter for the jury to decide. The Attorney agreed.) 

3. An alien travelling abroad with a British passport is as much under the 



22 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

protection of the Crown as if he were a British subject. “Both have the same 
passport and both enjoy the same right to protection.” 

4. British passports can be, and are, issued to aliens. Even if the passport 
was obtained by mistake or (as in Joyce’s case) by fraud, the Crown’s duty 
to protect the holder remained, wherever he might be. In an enemy country, 
he would be entitled to the protection of the “protecting power.” (This was 
Sweden, so far as the holders of British passports in wartime Germany were 
concerned.) 

Now came Mr. Slade, whose submission too I summarise, under, so far 
as possible, the same paragraph-numbers as I have used in epitomising Sir 
Hartley’s arguments. 

1. An alien owes allegiance to the Crown only so long as he is actually 
resident in the King’s dominions. This has been laid down many times. 

2. It was absurd to suggest that Joyce had left his family and effects in 
England, just because his parents and grown-up brothers and sisters remained 
here. He had no sort of control over them. So far as was known, his wife 
went to Germany with him. Further, Joyce had said in his statement that he 
had no intention of ever returning to England ; indeed, to do so would be to 
put his head into the lion’s mouth. 

3. The issue of a British passport to an alien does not of itself “clothe 
him with the status of a British subject.” In 1940 a Turkish holder of a British 
passport issued to him in Palestine was recommended by a London magistrate 
for deportation as an alien, and the recommendation was upheld by the Court 
of Criminal Appeal. 

4. The discovery that a man had wrongly obtained a British passport 
would disqualify him from protection by the King’s representatives in a foreign 
country if he got into trouble. His passport would then be withdrawn, and 
protection refused ; therefore he would owe no allegiance to the King. 

Suppose, Mr. Slade added, that Joyce had gone to the United States in 1939 
instead of Germany, and suppose the United States had come into the war 
against Britain. As an American citizen he would have had to fight against 
Britain: would anybody have suggested that, because he happened to have 
obtained a British passport, he became a traitor to the King ? 

And, finally, Mr. Slade put up a fresh point. 

5. No English court has jurisdiction to try foreigners for crimes committed 
by them abroad, except in the case of piracy. Joyce was not charged with being 
a pirate ! 

When Mr. Slade sat down, early in the third day of the trial, the Attorney- 
General answered him. Again I adopt the same order and numbers, though, 
of course, neither advocate actually used the same sequence as his opponent. 
Here, then, very briefly, is what the Attorney said : — 

1. In old days the legal conception of “residence” might well be confined 
to actual presence inside the Realm; but to-day, with increased travel facilities, 
it must be widened to wherever the King’s protection extends to cover a passport- 
holder. (Mr. Justice Tucker pointed out that Joyce’s passport was issued 
fur use not only in Germany, but also in other countries which had been neutral.) 
There was admittedly no precedent to the present case, but it is characteristic 
of the Common Law of England that it broadens down from precedent to pre- 
cedent. 

2. Joyce had applied for his passport for “holiday touring” only. The 
presumption, therefore, was that he intended, when he left England in 1939, 
t0 at ha< ? alwa Y s done before, namely, to return after a short absence. 

(When, this time, Sir Hartley remarked that Joyce’s intention might be 
tor the jury to decide, the Judge, who seemed to have revised his previous view, 
remarked that I doubt whether it is an element for their consideration, having 
regard to the way in which you put the case.”) 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 23 

3. The Turco-Palestinian gentleman’s case merely showed that the holder 
of a Pales tinian-British passport may still be regarded as an alien in England. 

4. Nobody can put an end to the validity of a passport except the Power 
that issues it. Nobody had withdrawn Joyce’s passport from him. 

5. The Defence point about jurisdiction begged the whole question at issue. 
If Joyce (alien though he was) owed allegiance to the Crown while travelling 
abroad with his British passport, then he could certainly be tried by an English 
court for treason, just like any British-born traitor. If allegiance exists, then 
jurisdiction exists for an English court to try breaches of it, wherever com- 
mitted. 

After the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Justice Tucker gave his ruling. It was 
against the Defence. He said that he would direct the jury as a matter of law 
that on the 24th August, 1939, when the passport was renewed for the second 
time, “the prisoner undoubtedly owed allegiance to the Crown of this country 
and on the evidence given, if [the jury] accept it, nothing happened at the material 
time thereafter ” — that is, up to July, 1940, when the passport expired — “to put 
an end to the allegiance that he then owed” What therefore remained for the 
jury to decide, the Judge added, was whether, as a question of fact, Joyce had 
intentionally adhered to the King’s enemies during that period. 

After this disaster, Mr. Slade now addressed the jury in what he must have 
realised was a hopeless endeavour. He argued — and, remember, he was now 
concerned only with the facts of the case, and no longer with its legal aspects — 
that the only evidence before the court that Joyce had in fact assisted the 
Germans between August, 1939, and the expiration of his passport in July, 1940, 
was that of the police officer who purported to recognise the prisoner’s voice 
in the broadcast about the destruction of Dover and Folkestone. Could anyone 
believe that a man of Joyce’s intelligence would have broadcast anything so 
ridiculous ? It might be asked, Mr. Slade went on, why he had not put Joyce 
into the witness-box to deny making that broadcast: the answer was that it 
was the Prosecution’s duty — not the Defence’s — to prove their case. (One may 
comment on this that, had Joyce given evidence and denied this particular 
broadcast, he would have been asked in cross-examination if he had not made 
other broadcasts for the Germans in the vital period ; if he denied this — and 
he might not have done — he would have been faced with the damning entry 
in his German Work Book that he had been employed in the German broad- 
casting service from the 18th September, 1939. He simply could not afford 
to go into the witness-box.) So Mr. Slade asked the jury to say that they were 
not entirely satisfied that Joyce had made that broadcast; but, even if they 
thought he had, were they nevertheless satisfied that he intended to help the 
Germans by it ? “Every time you tell a lie to British subjects, you don’t adhere 
to the enemies of His Majesty the King,’’ Mr. Slade suggested. As for the 
entry in the Work Book, this might only mean that Joyce, when he entered 
the Germans’ employment, intended at some future date to help them: but 
mere intent without overt acts was not treason. The argument was ingenious 
but not very convincing. 

The Attorney-General, closing for the Prosecution, spoke as shortly as his 
opponent. He quoted from Joyce’s signed statement to show that he admittedly 
went to Germany to propagate his views, while the Work Book showed that 
he entered the enemy’s broadcasting service only a fortnight after the war 
started. Further, Sir Hartley said, there was no reason why the jury should 
reject Inspector Hunt’s evidence about the Dover-Folkestone broadcast, nor 
was that broadcast so senseless as the Defence wished to suggest: listeners all 
over the world might well have believed it to be true, and such an impression 
was well calculated to assist the Germans’ war of nerves against us. 

The Judge then summed up. He began by explaining to the jury what the 
first two counts in the indictment had meant and why they had now been 



24 TH* TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

abandoned by the Prosecution : he directed the jury to return a verdict of Not 
Guilty on them. As for the third count, which now alone remained, he had 
been solely responsible for ruling on the question of law involved in it; 
nevertheless, he thought a brief explanation why he had upheld the Prosecution’s 
submission might be convenient, ’‘partly for your assistance and perhaps for 
consideration hereafter”— “hereafter” meaning, of course, in the event of an 
appeal. I need not set out what the Judge said, because in substance he accepted 
the Attomey-Generars submission, namely, that up to the time when the 
passport expired, Joyce was entitled to the protection of the Crown and owed 
it corresponding allegiance. 

Turning to the facts on which the jury had now to give their verdict, 
Mr. Justice Tucker reminded them of the evidence about the Dover-Folkestone 
broadcast and the various documents that placed the prisoner in the German 
service from September 1939. If the jury accepted that evidence, the Judge said, 
and decided that Joyce had assisted the Germans at the material time (and had 
intended so to do), then they might convict him ; but if they had any reasonable 
doubt in the matter, they must acquit. 

The jury retired for twenty-three minutes and returned with a formal verdict 
of Not Guilty on the first two counts and Guilty on count 3. Sentence of death 
was then passed. It is the only sentence which can be passed on a prisoner 
found guilty of high treason. 

Convictions involving the death penalty always go to appeal, except in the 
exceedingly rare instances where the prisoner has pleaded Guilty, as John 
Amcry did in a case to be mentioned later in this book. And at Joyce’s 
trial, of course, legal points had been raised of quite unusual difficulty and 
doubt. His appeal was duly heard at the end of October 1945, by a Court of 
Criminal Appeal consisting of the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Caldecote), Mr. 
Justice Humphreys (the most experienced Judge in criminal cases on the Bench) 
and Mr. Justice Lynskey, a comparatively new appointment. Mr. Slade and 
Sir Hartley Shawcross repeated their arguments over a period of three days, 
but the Court — in a judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice — unanimously 
approved Mr. Justice Tucker’s ruling on count 3 in the lower court and 
dismissed the appeal. 

There arose now the question whether appeal could be made to the House 
of Lords, the highest legal tribunal in the country. The Attorney-General’s 
certificate has to be obtained that “the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal 
involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable 
in the public interest that a further appeal should be brought” ; l as to which 
in this instance there could be no doubt at all. So the certificate was issued. 

Meanwhile, it would be idle to say that lawyers were agreed on the main 
issue in the case. The Prosecution’s contentions carried the law of treason 
farther than it had ever been stretched before: they might be right or they 
might be wrong, but the Bar certainly wished to know what the Lords had 
to say about them. To many it seemed that the Prosecution were right, both 
in law and in common-sense, in arguing that a man who obtains a British 
passport, however fraudulently, acquires by its possession a right to the pro- 
tection of the Crown and owes it corresponding allegiance. If, for instance, 
the Germans had accused Joyce in the early part of 1940 of some offence and 
interned him, he would have been entitled to whatever assistance the protecting 
power, Sweden, extended to British subjects in that situation. 

But others borrowed a striking phrase from Mr. Justice Tucker’s summing- 
up, where he said that “There is no such thing known to our law as ‘crime by 
estoppel’ ; you cannot become a traitor by estoppel.” Now, “estoppel” means 
that “a man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold — to affirm at one time 


^Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, 1 (6). 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


25 


and deny at another — making a claim on those he has deluded to their dis- 
advantage, and founding that claim on the very -matters of the delusion.” 1 
Applying these words to Joyce, it means that he, by describing himself as a 
British-born subject when applying for his passport and its renewals — or, to 
take the matter a stage further, by fraudulently obtaining a British passport, no 
matter how — would be disentitled (“estopped”) from founding his defence on the 
fact that he had deceived the passport officials. Was not this, asked some 
sceptics, really what had happened ? The answer, it seems to me, is that the 
Prosecution put the matter quite differently. For all they cared, Joyce might 
blow as hot and cold as he wished; they declared affirmatively that Joyce owed 
allegiance because he had in fact secured protection, whether he was a British 
subject or not, and no matter how he obtained his passport. And the Judge 
had agreed with the Prosecution; so had the Court of Criminal Appeal. 

The House of Lords sat at last on the 10th December, 1945, to hear the 
arguments, now familiar enough to my readers, of Mr. Slade and the Attorney- 
General, both of them, and Mr. Curtis-Bennett too, suffering from the un- 
pleasant disability of having to wear their heavy full-bottomed wigs (such is 
the penalty of being King’s Counsel) while the five members of the Court — the 
Lord Chancellor (Lord Jowitt), and Lords Macmillan, Wright, Porter and 
Simonds — somewhat incongruously wore no wigs or robes at all. When the 
speeches, which, as is customary in appeals, were interspersed with questions 
and observations by the Judges, ended on the fourth day, the Lords adjourned 
for a while to consider their decision. A majority verdict would suffice, but it 
was, I gather, by no means clear to the counsel concerned which way they were 
likely to find ; it was certain that there was some measure of disagreement among 
them. Indeed, when they did return, it was to announce that they would not 
give their decision that day at all, but would announce it at a special sitting 
four days later, on the following Tuesday. 

When that day came, four out of the five Lords of Appeal held that the 
appeal must be dismissed ; they would deliver their reasons at a still later date. 
Lord Porter, however, disagreed with his colleagues. He said this : — 

“In agreement with all your Lordships, I think that the renewal of his pass- 
port, which Joyce obtained on the 24th August, 1939, was evidence from which 
the jury might have inferred that he retained that document for use up to 
18th September of that year, when he was proved to have first adhered to the 
King’s enemies, and might therefore have inferred that he continued to owe 
allegiance to the Crown up to that date. As, however, in my view, the question 
whether he did so retain it was never left to the jury, but they were directed as a 
matter of law that his duty of allegiance was extended to the later date, and as 
your Lordships cannot send the case back for retrial, I would myself allow the 
appeal on that ground.” 

Readers will note what this dissentient judgment says, and what it does not 
say. Lord Porter agrees that there was evidence from which the jury might 
have inferred that Joyce retained the passport up to the time he entered the 
Germans’ service and intended to use it : this question, in Lord Porter’s view, 
should have been left to the jury to decide. (What the jury would have decided 
one cannot say with complete assurance: but I find it hard to suppose that 
they or any other jury would have answered the question in Joyce’s favour.) 
But Lord Porter did not say that the question whether Joyce’s retention of the 
passport carried with it a duty of allegiance to the Crown was a matter for the 
jury; for this was a question of law. His full judgment, given afterwards, 
makes this clear. 

Suppose, indeed, that Joyce, having merely used the passport as a means 

*Baron Parke in Cave v. Mills (1862), reported in Hurlstone & Walmsley's Reports , 
vol. 7, p. 927. 



26 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

of leaving England, had destroyed it the moment he reached Germany or, better 
still had torn it up and sent the pieces back to England, disclaiming any further 
interest in it ? What then ? Would the Prosecution have succeeded in their 
contention that, despite his repudiation of it, the passport still remained effective 
until it expired or the Crown agreed to cancel it ? Very likely not, but, since 
no evidence was available to suggest that anything of the kind ever happened, 
these are only idle speculations. 

Joyce was hanged at Wandsworth Jail on the morning of the 3rd January, 
1946, four weeks before the Lords delivered their judgments on his appeal, 
which will be found at the appropriate page in this volume. 

It would be idle to pretend that lawyers as a body were, or are to-day, 
altogether satisfied with the outcome of the affair. New law had been made, 
or, rather, the existing law had been stretched almost to breaking-point — and 
a man had died for it. The general public, on the other hand, had no doubts 
in the matter: and for once they may have been right and the doubting lawyers 
wrong. The legal mind tends on occasion to be over-subtle. 

And now I invite my readers to take their places in the jury-box at the 
Old Bailey on Monday morning, the 17th September, 1945. Never mind the 
long queues stretching down the street : you shall go straight in, but very few 
of them will be admitted. On your left as you take your seats, is the witness-box, 
the Bench and the little box in which the official shorthand- writer sits. Immed- 
iately before you is, first of all, a row of seats reserved for the Press — but so many 
Pressmen from all over the world wish to be present at this trial that some 
of the public benches have also been reserved for them — then the solicitors’ 
table at which are seated the police officers in the case, members of M.I.5 of the 
War Office in uniform, representatives of the department of the Director of 
Public Prosecutions, and the defendant’s solicitor ; and beyond them, counsel’s 
benches, with the Attorney-General and Mr. Byrne at one end of the front row, 
and Mr. Slade and Mr. Curtis-Bennett at the other. Mr. Howard and Mr. Burge 
sit in the second row, behind their respective leaders, and, behind them again, 
are numbers of barristers in wig and gown and, still farther back, privileged 
members of the public on the benches retained by the Common Council of the 
City of London. Before the front row of counsel you will note that a special 
shelf has been fitted to hold some of the books to which they will be referring in 
the course of the trial ; other volumes overflow on to their desks. Between the 
solicitors’ table and the Judge’s platform is a raised desk at which the Clerk 
of the Court and his assistant are sitting and, beside them, the Director of 
Public Prosecutions, Mr. Theobald Mathew (the son of the late Charles 
Mathew, K.C., of the Chancery Bar, and nephew of that great legal wit, the 
late Theo Mathew), newly appointed to this post on the resignation of Sir 
Edward Tindal Atkinson. On your right is the raised dock. 

You hear three taps on the door behind the platform, like the signal in a 
French theatre for the raising of the curtain. Everybody rises and faces the 
Bench. The door opens, and a small group of aldermen and sheriffs in their 
robes pass through, standing aside then to bow to the Judge, who enters in his 
red robe, carrying in his hand a pair of white gloves and that strip of black cloth 
which is called the black cap. He reaches his desk in the centre, while an 
usher intones an ancient proclamation. 

When he finishes, the Judge turns and bows to the aldermen, then to the 
Clerk and to counsel, and to yourselves in the jury-box. He sits down, placing 
the black cloth unobtrusively behind a row of books where the prisoner will 
not see it— -until, maybe, the end of the trial. 

“Put up William Joyce,” the Clerk calls. 

You hear footsteps on the stairs at the back of the dock. A short man with 
a scarred cheek and cropped hair — Joyce has been suffering from some affection 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


27 


of the scalp and is still being treated for it — comes up, walks stiffly to the front 
of the dock, casts a quick, expressionless glance round the court and bows to 
the Judge. 

The Clerk picks up a sheaf of large typewritten pages, bound with green 
ribbon, and, addressing the prisoner, says — what you will find in the pages 
which now follow. 

I have changed and omitted nothing from the proceedings at the trial which 
you would have heard, except that on one or two pages I have altered a few 
references to “Exhibit Number This” and “Exhibit Number That” to a des- 
cription of the document produced. And at the end of the book, after the 
House of Lords judgments in the now leading case of The King v. Joyce , you 
will find brief accounts of some other recent trials of men and women who 
were false to their allegiance during the war. 

My thanks are due to Mr. A. J. F. Wrottesley, of the Inner Temple, who has 
kindly assisted me by correcting and checking the proofs of the proceedings at the 
trial and of the House of Lords judgments. 




CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. 


OLD BAILEY, E.C.4. 


Before: 

MR. JUSTICE TUCKER. 

REX 

v. 

WILLIAM JOYCE 


The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross, K.C., M.P.), 

Mr. L. A. Byrne, and Mr. Gerald Howard appeared on 
behalf of the Prosecution. 

Mr. G. O. Slade, K.C., Mr. Derek Curtk-Bennett, K.C., 
and Mr. James Burge appeared on behalf of the Prisoner. 

FIRST DAY. — Monday, 17th September, 1945 
PLEA 

The Clerk of the Court : William Joyce, you are charged in an indictment 
containing three counts with high treason. The particulars in the first 
count are that on the 18th September, 1939, and on other days between 
that day and the 29th May, 1945, you, being a person owing allegiance to 
our lord the King, and while a war was being carried on by the German 
Realm against our King, did traitorously adhere to the King’s enemies in 
parts beyond the seas, that is to say, in Germany, by broadcasting pro- 
paganda. In a second count of the same indictment it is charged that you, 
on the 26th September, 1940, being a person owing allegiance as in the 
other count, adhered to the King’s enemies by purporting to become 
naturalised as a subject of Germany. And in a third count the particulars 
are the same as in the first count, that is to say, you are charged with 
broadcasting propaganda, but the dates are different, and the dates in this 
case are the 18th September, 1939, and on days between that day and 
the 2nd July, 1940. Are you guilty or not guilty ? 

The Prisoner: Not guilty. 

The Clerk of the Court: There is another indictment against you. {The 
Judge intervened.) 


{Jury duly sworn.) 

The Clerk of the Court: Members of the jury, the prisoner at the Bar, 
William Joyce, is charged in an indictment containing three counts : each 
of those charges is a charge of high treason. In the first count the 
particulars are that on the 18th September, 1939, and on other days 
between that day and the 29th May, 1945, he, being a person owing 
allegiance to the King, while a war was being carried on by the German 
Realm against the King, did traitorously adhere to the King’s enemies by 
broadcasting propaganda. In the second count it is charged that he, on 

29 



30 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

the 26th September, 1940, being a person owing allegiance as before, did 
traitorously adhere to the enemies of the King by purporting to become 
naturalised as a subject of Germany. And in a third count the particulars 
are the same as those in the first count, that is to say, it is another charge 
of broadcasting propaganda on the 18th September, 1939, and on other 
days between that day and the 2nd July, 1940. To this indictment he has 
pleaded Not Guilty, and it is your charge to say, having heard the evidence, 
whether he be guilty or not. 

The Attorney-General : May it please your Lordship, members of the jury, 
in this case I appear with my learned friends Mr. Byrne and Mr. Gerald 
Howard to prosecute, and the prisoner is defended by my learned friends 
Mr. Slade, Mr. Curtis-Bennett and Mr. Burge; and, as you have just 
heard, the prisoner who is in your charge is William Joyce, and to-day, 
nearly six years since he first entered into the employment of the German 
Broadcasting Corporation, he comes before you on what is the gravest 
crime known to our law, upon an indictment for treason. 

Members of the jury, may I, before I tell you anything about the details 
of this case, just make one or two preliminary observations to you in 
regard to it ? It would be idle to shut our eyes to the fact that some of us 
may know or think we know something about this case. 

We may in times past have read about this man in the newspapers; 
we may have discussed his activities — and indeed his activities were 
notorious enough — it may be even perhaps in those dark days of 1940 
when this country was standing alone against the whole force and might 
of Nazi Germany, that some of us may have heard or thought we heard 
his voice on the wireless, attempting as we may have thought to undermine 
the morale of our people, and perhaps at that time some of us formed feelings 
of dislike and detestation at what he was doing, and perhaps later on 
some of us heard with a not altogether unnatural satisfaction that he had 
been apprehended and was to be brought to trial. 

If any one of you had feelings of that kind about this man I ask you, 
as I know you will, to cast them entirely from your minds. You are sworn, 
you know, to try this man according to our law and upon the evidence 
alone. I daresay that in the years to come in the pages of history it will 
count for nothing what happens to William Joyce in the course of this 
trial. He will leave no mark upon those pages, but it may count for a 
great deal that we who in our various activities are concerned in this trial 
to do and comport ourselves in accordance with the best traditions of 
English law, that we should try this man according to the law without fear 
or favour, affection or ill-will, on the evidence, unprejudiced by any 
preconceived notions, coldly, dispassionately, on the evidence, and on 
that alone. So best shall we sustain that great record of impartiality and 
equal justice which British courts and British juries hold in the eyes of the 
whole civilised world. 

Then there are two other matters to which I would like to refer before 
I tell you anything about the details of this case : two matters which you 
should have in mind throughout the observations which I shall have to 
make to you, and indeed throughout the whole course of this trial, and 
the first is this. In this case, exactly as in every other case, it is for the 
Prosecution to make out their case against the prisoner. It is for the 
Prosecution to establish that case beyond doubt ; and if at the end of it, 
when you have heard the whole of the evidence and you come to consider 
the matter under the direction of my Lord, you are 1 eft with any doubt — 
not any fVivolous, fantastic speculation, but any reasonable doubt such 
as you would allow to affect your conduct in your ordinary affairs of 
business or everyday life— then you will resolve the matter in favour of 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 31 

the prisoner, for that would mean that the Prosecution had failed to make 
out their case against him. 

Secondly, members of the jury, there is this. This case, as every other 
case, consists partly in matters of fact and partly in considerations of law. 
Matters of fact are for you, matters of law are for my Lord. Presently, 
under the direction of my Lord as to the law, you will arrive at your own 
independent conclusion on the facts and on the evidence that has been 
called before you, and when in the course of this case I have occasion to 
refer to the facts, you must not accept them from me; you must wait 
until they come to be proved in the evidence, as they will be proved. And 
so also in regard to the law, I shall have occasion in opening this case to 
you to indicate how the law is put on behalf of the Prosecution, but I shall 
be doing no more than putting a submission as to the law on behalf of the 
Crown, subject always to my Lord’s better judgment. I shall be doing 
that in order that it should be understood from the beginning how the 
Crown put this case, and in order, when you come to consider the facts, 
that you should see them in the legal framework which the Crown suggests 
is appropriate to them in this case; but remember when I refer to any 
legal matter it is always subject to the later correction and direction of my 
Lord, and you will not take the law from me but from my Lord when he 
sums up this case to you. 

Members of the jury, the prisoner, as you have heard, is charged with 
treason. There are a number of varieties of treason known to our law, 
all of them striking in a greater or lesser degree at the security and safety 
of the State, but the treason which is charged against this prisoner in each 
of the three counts of this indictment is perhaps the most serious of them 
all, the treason of giving aid and comfort to the King’s enemies, to use the 
old language of our law which has come down to us for six hundred years — 
the treason of adhering to the King’s enemies, the treason of assisting 
Germany in her war against our country and our King. 

Whether or not the prisoner’s activities did Germany more harm than 
good is a matter about which it will not be necessary for us to speculate. 
On the 1st September, 1944, the prisoner — whether with pride or shame 
I cannot tell you, for I do not know — received from Hitler himself the 
award of the Cross of War Merit for his services to Germany during the 
war. When you have heard the evidence in this case you will not be left 
with the slightest shadow of doubt but that throughout the war, from the 
beginning to the end of it, this prisoner was assisting the Germans and 
adhering to the King’s enemies. 

Now, members of the jury, that alone is not enough to make this man 
guilty of the offence of treason. Not everybody who assists the King’s 
enemies is capable of committing the crime of treason. A German soldier 
fighting in the uniform of his country may be made a prisoner of war, but 
he cannot be convicted of treason, for he would be fighting for his own 
people and his own country and under no debt or duty of loyalty or 
faithfulness to the British Crown. Only those can be convicted of treason 
who owe a duty of loyalty and faithfulness to the British Crown ; only 
those can be convicted of treason who, in the language of our law, the 
language that you have heard read in this indictment, owe a duty of 
allegiance to the Crown, and the first thing that you must have prominent 
before your minds throughout the whole course of this case is : did this 
prisoner owe a duty of allegiance to the British Crown ? 

Now, members of the jury, the very basis of allegiance is this; and I 
am using now the language of Blackstone, one of the old masters of English 
law : that so long as the Prince affords protection to his subjects, so long 
that subject owes a debt of allegiance to the Prince. Protection by the 



32 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Prince, by the Crown, by the State— protection on the one hand and 
allegiance on the other hand arc, in the submission of the Crown, reciprocal 
things, correlative things; the two go together. “Protection”— and again 
I am using the words of one of our great Judges of olden times — “Protection 
draws allegiance , just as allegiance draws protection .” Those who are 
placed or who place themselves under the protection of the Crown owe the 
Crown a duty of allegiance so long as that protection continues. 

The usual case, the common case of protection and allegiance, arises 
in the case of an ordinary natural-bom British subject, the man who, either 
because he is native-born in this country, or because although bora abroad 
he is bom of British parents, has as his birthright the protection of the 
British Crown, and owes permanently the corresponding duty of allegiance 
to the British Crown. That is the common ordinary case such as most 
of us find ourselves in, but, although that is the ordinary case and the 
common case, it is not the only case, and from the most ancient times our 
law has recognised that aliens, people of foreign birth and foreign 
nationality, may place themselves under the protection of the Crown, and 
that whilst they remain under that protection they may owe and do owe a 
duty of allegiance to the Crown. 

In the past it was rarely possible for the Crown to extend that protection 
beyond our own dominions, beyond the Crown’s own realm, and so that 
allegiance which was due from a foreigner was then called local allegiance 
because it existed only so long as the alien remained within the locality 
over which the Crown had jurisdiction ; beyond that locality the Crown had 
no power of exercising protection. But in more modern times, owing to 
the growth of International Law, the growth of diplomatic usage, the Crown 
is able in some respects to extend its protection to subjects beyond the seas 
in whatever countries they may go to ; and it is the case here for the Crown 
that whatever his nationality, whether he was British or whether he was not 
British, this prisoner is a man who had claimed and asserted the right to 
British citizenship, who had received the protection which is accorded by 
the Crown to British citizens, who had clothed himself in the full status of 
a British subject, and who in consequence owed a duty of allegiance to the 
Crown. 

Now, members of the jury, having told you that by way of preliminary 
observations about this case, having indicated to you how the Crown puts 
the law with regard to this case (subject always to my Lord’s later correction 
and direction) let me tell you something about the actual facts. 

When this man was apprehended, after he was apprehended, there was 
found amongst his property acknowledged by him a birth certificate 
purporting to show that he had been bom in America of a father whose 
birth was recorded as having taken place in Ireland. Later in the course 
of a statement which he made and which I shall presently read to you, he 
said that he had been bom in America in 1906, that his father had been 
bora in Ireland and his mother in England, but that before his birth in 
America they had both of them become naturalised as citizens of the 
United States. 

Members of the jury, if that is true — and this is a matter about which 
you will have to make up your minds when you have heard the whole of 
the evidence in this case — it would mean that at all times material to this 
case the prisoner was an American citizen, owing no natural duty of 
allegiance to the British Crown, but still capable as an alien of placing 
himself under the protection of the Crown, of clothing himself with the 
status of a British subject and thereby acquiring and taking upon himself 
an obligation to be loyal and faithful to the British Crown. Now let us 
see what in fact he did do. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


33 


In 1922 he appears to have been living, apparently with his father, in 
this country, in Oldham in Lancashire, and it seems that he was a student 
at the London University, and on the 9th August, 1922, he wrote a letter 
to the officer commanding the London University O.T.C., which he was 
desirous of joining. You will hear the whole of the letter; you will have 
it, and I will not bother you with all the details of it now, but in the course 
of the letter he says this : “I must now mention a point which I hope will 
not give rise to difficulties. I was bom in America, but of British parents. 
I left America when two -years of age, have not returned since, and do not 
propose to return. I was informed at the Brigade Headquarters of the 
district in which I was stationed in Ireland that I possessed the same rights 
and privileges as I would if of natural British birth. I can obtain 
testimonials as to my loyalty to the Crown. I am in no way connected 
with the United States of America, against which, as against all other 
nations, I am prepared to draw the sword in British interests. As a young 
man of pure British descent, some of whose forefathers have held high 
positions in the British Army, I have always been desirous of devoting 
what little capability and energy I may possess to the country which I love 
so dearly.” 

That matter was inquired into. Some communication was sent to the 
prisoner’s father, and in the result he was admitted to membership of the 
London University O.T.C. Whether the statement in that letter as to his 
British nationality be true or not, this at least is apparent, that at that 
time he was not unwilling to represent himself and to contract upon the 
basis of being entitled to all the rights and privileges of British citizenship. 

Members of the jury, eleven years later we come to another matter of 
written record in this case. On the 4th July, 1933, the prisoner made an 
application to the British Foreign Office for a passport, a British passport. 
You will see the application form ; it will be proved in evidence before you, 
and again I am not going to read out all the details as to this man’s history 
which it contains, but there are just three matters to which I would invite 
your particular attention when you come to look at the document 
yourselves. It contains in heavily leaded type a notice under the heading 
“Important.” “Applicants and persons recommending them are warned 
that, should any of the statements contained in their respective declarations 
prove to be untrue, the consequences to them may be serious,” and then 
in a note indicating how people are to fill in the form there is this: “State 
exact national status, e.g. a British Subject by Birth or a British Subject 
by naturalisation, British- protected person, etc. In the case of a British 
Subject by naturalisation see Rule 5 at Back.” And then, having been 
warned in that way, having had his attention directly drawn to what he 
was to state in regard to his nationality, he says this, “I, the undersigned, 
William Joyce” — and he gives his address, a London address — “hereby 
declare that I am a British subject by birth, having been bom at Rutledge 
Terrace, Galway, Ireland, on the 24th day of April, 1906; and not having 
lost the status of British subject thus acquired, I hereby apply for a passport 
for travelling” — and then he lists a number of places to which he wants to 
travel, as he says, for the purpose of holiday touring. 

Then, members of the jury, five years later, on the 24th September, 1938, 
he makes an application for a renewal of that passport, the passport itself 
having been issued to him in the first instance for a period of five years. 
And in the course of that application, on the application-form that he had 
to fill in his attention was again called to the importance of the fact that 
the statements that he might make in the form should be true : “Applicants 
and persons recommending them are warned that, should any of the 
statements contained in their respective declarations prove to be untrue, 



u 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCB 


they will render themselves liable to prosecution.” You will see it was 
put a little more strongly in this renewal form at that time than it had 
been in the original application form, and again he was required to insert 
his exact national status, and again he said, “I declare that I am a British 
subject by birth and 1 have not lost that national status, and that the whole 
of the particulars given by me in respect of this application are true.” 
On that, the passport was renewed for a further year, and then on the 24th 
August, 1939, on the very eve of the war in which this country became 
involved, he applied again for a further renewal of his British passport, 
and again under the same warning, with the same direction to state exactly 
his national status, he declared again that he was a British subject by 
birth, and that he had not lost that national status, and that the whole of 
the particulars given by him in respect of his application were true. 

On the strength and on the faith of that original application and of the 
two applications for renewal, a British passport was issued to William 
Joyce and was renewed in 1938 and in 1939, and that, in the submission of 
the Prosecution, is a vital part of this case. Whether the statement that 
he was bom in Ireland was true or not, whether the statement that he was 
a British subject, whether by birth in Ireland or by birth in America of 
British parents, was true or not, the submission of the Crown is that, so 
long as that British passport continued to be valid, so long as it was held 
by him, it placed him, in whatever country he chose to go, in exactly the 
same position under the protection of the British Crown as would be any 
other British subject holding a British passport properly obtained. It 
placed him under the protection of the British Crown, it clothed him with 
the status of a British subject, and it required from him the duty of 
faithfulness and allegiance to the British Crown in return. 

Members of the jury, the words with which a British passport opens 
are not idle words. Let me read them to you. You will see the whole 
document, but let me read them to you, sanctified and recognised as they 
are by international diplomatic usage. This one, issued to this man in 
1933 and renewed in 1938 and again for a further period of a year in 1939, 
said this : “We, Sir John Allsebrook Simon, a Member of His Majesty’s 
Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Commander of the Most 
Exalted Order of the Star of India, Knight Commander of the Royal 
Victorian Order, Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, 
a Member of Parliament, etc., etc., His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs, request and require in the name of His Majesty 
all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without 
let or hindrance, and to afford him every assistance and protection of which 
he may stand in need.” Members of the jury, in a foreign country, friendly, 
neutral or belligerent, that passport entitled this man to be accorded all 
the rights and ail the protection due to a British subject ; nor were those 
rights insignificant even in Germany, even in time of war. In Germany 
in time of war William Joyce, as the holder of this British passport, was 
entitled to all those rights which by international law one belligerent power 
owes to the subjects of another. Those rights Germany could disregard 
only at her peril, at the peril of reprisals being taken against German 
subjects held in this country, at the peril of satisfaction being demanded 
for any wrongs that might have been done to William Joyce, at the end of 
the war; and in the meantime, possessed of those rights, he enjoys the 
full protection which the neutral power looking after British interests in 
Germany in time of war was able to accord to him, and he would have 
been entitled, had he so desired, to call upon that neutral power for whatever 
assistance or protection he might have required. 

We say that in those circumstances he had not merely clothed himself 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


35 


with the status of a British subject ; he had, so to speak, enveloped himself 
in the Union Jack, secured for himself die greatest protection that he 
could secure. You may think it is small wonder that in those circumstances 
the Prosecution here say that he was required to comport and demean 
himself as a loyal British subject owing allegiance to the British Crown. 

Now let us see what in fact he did do. On the 24th August, 1939, he 
applied for a renewal of this passport. War at that time, as you will 
remember, was imminent between the two countries, and within a few 
days, no doubt thinking, however mistakenly, that he was deserting the 
sinking ship, he left this country for Germany. On the 3rd September 
war broke out. Nor did this man, who had protested to love this country 
so dearly and to be ready to draw the sword in favour of it, lose much time 
in associating himself with our enemies. After he was apprehended there 
was found amongst his property a document signed by him, called, I 
think, a German work-book, a record which apparently was to be kept of 
the various employments into which a person might enter. It was issued 
to him early in October of 1 939, and it showed or purported to show that 
on the 18th September, within a fortnight of the outbreak of war, he had 
been engaged by the German broadcasting organisation as an editor, 
speaker and announcer of English news, and at once he commenced 
broadcasting. You will hear that either at the end of September or early 
October he was heard by somebody in this country familiar with his voice, 
announcing with singular disregard of the facts — because at that time not 
a bomb had been dropped in either place — that Dover and Folkestone had 
been destroyed. I shall not bother you with the details of the various 
broadcasts about which you will hear, but throughout the war from the 
beginning to the end he was broadcasting over the network of the German 
broadcasting system propaganda to this country. 

Members of the jury, in the work-book, which you will see and have 
an opportunity of studying — it is in German, of course, but it will be 
translated — he is described as a British subject, and under the heading of 
“Special Qualifications” is the word “English.” I cannot tell you, for I 
do not know, whether that means that his special qualification was that he 
could speak English, or that he was English, but you will probably have 
little doubt about this, that it was because he was a British subject that he 
had his great value, if he had indeed any value to the Germans at that 
time. They wanted him to broadcast as a British subject to his own 
people in the hope, the vain hope, that he might undermine the morale of 
his own people and seduce some of them from their allegiance to the 
British Crown. 

Records were kept of the various broadcasts which he made from time 
to time, and indeed from day to day. In 1942 he appears to have been 
appointed to the superior position of head commentator in the English 
section at a salary of 1,200 marks a month, and when the Luxemburg 
Station was captured by the British troops in May of this year there was 
found there a receipt showing that he had been paid fifty marks for each 
of four broadcasts that he had made apparently from that station in the 
course of the preceding year. As I told you, in that year on the 1st 
September, 1944, he received the distinction from Hitler of the award of 
the Cross of War-Merit of the First Class. 

Members of the jury, in respect of those matters he is charged with high 
treason in the first count of this indictment, in the first of the three counts 
of this indictment, with adhering to the King’s enemies between the 
18th September, 1939, the date according to the Work Book from which 
he was first engaged by the German Broadcasting Corporation, until the 
29th May, 1945, the day on which he was apprehended. 



36 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCI 

On that day, the 29th May of this year, two British officers were 
gathering wood for a fire in some forest in Germany near the Danish 
frontier, and whilst they were there looking for wood to collect, a man 
came along and indicated to them where there was some loose wood 
lying about, and he spoke to them at first in French, but later again, to 
indicate where there was some more wood, he spoke in English, and his 
voice was immediately recognised. And one of the officers said to him, 
“You wouldn’t be William Joyce, would you ?” or, “Would you be William 
Joyce ?’’ — I have forgotten the exact phrase ; there is nothing turns on it. 
“Would you be William Joyce?” And, when that was said, this man 
made a movement with his hand towards his pocket, which one of the 
officers— -mistakenly, as it turned out— thought was in order to draw a 
firearm, and that officer, with perhaps more mercy than many people would 
have shown in the circumstances, shot him in the leg. As it turned out, 
he was not armed ; but you may think that that officer was not unwise in 
taking every precaution against the possibility of some treachery. At all 
events, no harm was done ; he was injured in the leg, and in due course he 
recovered and he was subsequently searched. In his possession there was 
found, not this time a British passport, but some form of German passport, 
some form of German pass, and in that document he was recorded as 
being of German nationality, formerly British-German, formerly British — 
and in the course of a statement that he subsequently made he said that 
he had become naturalised as a German subject some time in September, 
I think it was 1940. 

Members of the jury, if at that time, if in September, 1940, he was a 
British subject and not, as he later alleged, an American, then to become 
naturalised as a German when Germany was at war with this country 
would in itself be an act of treason against this country and against the 
Crown, and in respect of that matter of becoming naturalised at that time 
he is separately charged with treason in count 2 of the indictment. 

Then on the 31st May, after being duly cautioned and warned that he 
need not say anything, he made a statement and this is what he said: 
“I was bom in Brooklyn, U.S.A., on 24th April, 1906. My father was 
Michael Joyce and my mother Gertrude Emily Brooke. My father was 
bom in Ireland in or near Ballinrobe, and my mother was bom in 
Lancashire at Shaw. I understand, though I have no documents to prove 
any statement, that my father was American by naturalisation at the time 
of my birth, and I believe he lost his American citizenship later through 
failing to renew it because we left America in 1909, when I was three years 
old. We were generally counted as British subjects during our stay in 
Ireland and England. I was in Ireland from 1909 till 1921, when I came 
to England. We were always treated as British during the period of my 
stay in England whether we were or not. In 1940 I acquired German 
nationality. I believe the date was 26th September, but the certificate of 
naturalisation is not in my possession. The only evidence I can offer in 
support of my statement is the entry in my Wehrpass issued subsequently 
to my naturalisation, where I am put down as of German nationality.” 
That is the document I referred to, the German pass, in which he is recorded 
as “German, formerly British.” “I have been cautioned that I am not 
obliged to say anything. I understand that proceedings may be taken 
against me and that whatever I say may be written down and given in 
evidence.” 

Then he went on to say this : “I take this opportunity of making a 
preliminary statement concerning the motives which led me to come to 
Germany and to broadcast to Britain over the German radio service. I 
was actuated not by the desire for personal gain, material or otherwise. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


37 


but solely by political conviction, I was brought up as an extreme Conserva- 
tive with strong Imperialist ideas, but very early in my career, namely, 
in 1923, became attracted to Fascism and subsequently to National 
Socialism. Between the years 1923 and 1939 I pursued vigorous political 
activities in England, at times as a Conservative but mainly as a Fascist 
or National Socialist. In the period immediately before the war began I 
was profoundly discontented with the policies pursued by British Govern- 
ments, first because I felt that they would lead to the eventual disruption 
of the British Empire, and secondly because I thought the existing economic 
system entirely inadequate to the needs of the times. I was very greatly 
impressed by constructive work which Hitler had done for Germany and 
was of the opinion that throughout Europe as also in Britain there must 
come a reform on the lines of National Socialist doctrine, although I did 
not suppose that every aspect of National Socialism as advocated in 
Germany would be accepted by the British people. 

“One of my dominant beliefs was that a war between Britain and 
Germany would be a tragedy, the effects of which Britain and the British 
Empire would not survive and I considered that a grossly disproportionate 
influence was exerted on British policy by the Jews who had their reasons 
for hating National Socialist Germany. When in August, 1939, the final 
crisis emerged I felt that the question of Danzig offered no just cause for a 
world war. As by reason of my opinions I was not conscientiously disposed 
to fight for Britain for Germany — I think that means ‘for Britain against 
Germany’ — I decided to leave the country since I did not wish to play 
the part of a conscientious objector and since I supposed that in Germany 
I should have the opportunity to express and propagate views the expression 
of which would be forbidden in Britain during time of war. Realising, 
however, that at this critical juncture I had declined to serve Britain, I drew 
the logical conclusion that I should have no moral fight to return to that 
country of my own free will and that it would be best to apply for German 
citizenship and make my permanent home in Germany. 

“Nevertheless it remained my undeviating purpose to attempt as best I 
could to bring about a reconciliation or at least an understanding between 
the two countries. After Russia and the United States had entered the 
war such an agreement appeared to me no less desirable than before, for, 
although it seemed probable that with these powerful allies Britain would 
succeed in defeating Germany, I considered that the price which would 
ultimately have to be paid for this help would be far higher than the price 
involved in a settlement with Germany. This belief was strengthened from 
month to month as the power of Russia grew, and during the later stages 
of the war I became certain that Britain, even though capable of gaining 
a military triumph over the Germans, would in that event be confronted 
with a situation far more dangerous and complicated than that which 
existed in August, 1939; and thus until the very last moment I clung to 
my hope of an Anglo-German understanding, although I could see that 
the prospects thereof were small. 

“I know that I have been denounced as a traitor and I resent the accusa- 
tion, as I conceive myself to have been guilty of no underhand or deceitful 
act against Britain, although I am also able to understand the resentment 
that my broadcasts have, in many quarters, aroused. Whatever opinion 
may be formed at the present time with regard to my conduct, I submit 
that the final judgment cannot be properly passed until it is seen whether 
Britain can win the peace. 

“Finally, I should like to stress the fact that, in coming to Germany 
and in working for the German radio system, my wife was powerfully 
influenced by me. She protests to the contrary, but I am sure that, if I 



38 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


had not taken this step, she would not have taken it either. This statement 
has been read over to me and it is true/’ 

Now, members of the jury, that is really the whole of this case. That 
this man adhered to the King’s enemies you will not have the slightest 
shadow of doubt. If, on the whole of the evidence, remembering that the 
onus is on the Prosecution in this case as in every case, you come, under 
my Lord’s directions, to the conclusion that this man was a British subject, 
then it is open to you to convict him on counts 1 and 2 of this indictment. 

Count 3 stands in rather a different position and is put on a different 
basis, and I invite your very closest attention to it throughout the hearing 
of this case. Count 3, as you will have observed, covers the period up to 
the 2nd July, 1940. It was on the 2nd July, 1940, that the British passport 
which had been renewed to this man in August of 1939 came to an end, 
and it is in respect of that period covering the validity of the British passport 
that count 3 of this indictment is laid. It alleges against the prisoner that 
between those dates, the 18th September, 1939, when he entered into the 
employment of the German Broadcasting Company, and the 2nd July, 1940, 
when the passport came to an end, being between those dates a person 
owing allegiance to the Crown, he adhered to the Crown’s enemies. 

Members of the jury, if, under and subject to my Lord’s direction in 
regard to the law, you come to the conclusion that this man was under 
the protection of the British Crown between those dates, and again under 
my Lord’s direction, you come to the conclusion that he owed a duty, a 
corresponding duty of allegiance, then, even if you are not satisfied that he 
was of British nationality and acquit him on the first two counts in this 
indictment, it would be open to you, under my Lord’s direction, to convict 
him on the third count. 

Now that is the whole of this case. I have no desire, my learned friends 
have no desire either, to exaggerate the facts against this man or in any 
way at all to strain the law applicable to cases of this kind ; and you will 
try this case serenely indifferent to the consequences so far as they may 
affect William Joyce whether your verdict be one of guilty or not — anxious 
only, as I indicated to you when I commenced my opening, to maintain 
the great traditions of the English law for equal and impartial justice. 

Now, with the assistance of my learned friends, I shall call the evidence 
before you. 


Gladys Winifred Isaac, Sworn. 

Examined by Mr. Byrne. 

Q. Is your name Gladys Winifred Isaac ? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you an assistant secretary to the University of London Military Educa- 
tion Committee ? A. Yes. 

Q. Does that administer the regulations of the Senior Training Corps? 
A. Yes. 

Q . Before the war that was known as the Officers’ Training Corps, Senior 
Division ? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you in charge of the records of the ex-cadets of the Officers’ Training 
Corps ? A. Yes. 

Q. First of all, will you kindly look at a letter signed by William Joyce, dated 
3rd August, 1922 ? Is it a document from your records ? A. Yes. 

Q. Does it bear the address, 86 Brompton Street, Oldham, Lancs, 3rd August, 
1922. Dear Sir, Will you kindly forward, or inform me as to how I may 
obtain a copy of the University of London Officers’ Training Corps Hand- 
book, and oblige. Yours faithfully, William Joyce”? Is that right? 
A. Yes. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


39 


Q. Do you produce a letter from your records dated 9th August, 1922, signed 
“William Joyce”? Does that bear the address, “86 Brompton Street, 
Oldham, Lancs., 9th August, 1922. Dear Sir, I received this morning the 
Corps Handbook for which I thank you. It is my intention, if possible, 
to study with a view to being nominated by the University for a Commission 
in the Regular Army. I have served with the irregular forces of the Crown 
in an Intelligence capacity against the Irish guerillas. In command of a 
squad of sub-agents I was subordinate to the late Capt. P. W. Keating, 
2nd R.U.R., who was drowned in the ‘Egypt’ accident. I have a knowledge 
of the rudiments of musketry, bayonet fighting, and squad drill. I must 
now mention a point which I hope will not give rise to difficulties. I was 
born in America, but of British parents. I left America when two years 
of age, have not returned since, and do not propose to return. I was 
informed at the Brigade Headquarters of the district in which I was 
stationed in Ireland, that I possessed the same rights and privileges as I 
would if of natural British birth. I can obtain testimonials as to my loyalty 
to the Crown. I am in no way connected with the United States of America, 
against which, as against all other nations, I am prepared to draw the 
sword in British interests. As a young man of pure British descent, some 
of whose forefathers have held high positions in the British Army, I have 
always been desirous of devoting what little capability and energy I may 
possess to the country which I love so dearly. I ask that you may inform 
me if the accident of my birth, to which I refer above, will affect my 
position. I shall be in London for the September Matriculation Examina- 
tion, and I hope to commence studies at the London University at the 
beginning of the next academic year. I trust that you will reply as soon 
as possible, and that your reply will be favourable to my aspirations. 
Thanking you for your kind promise of interview. I am. Sir, Yours 
faithfully, William Joyce” ? A. Yes. 

Q. Miss Isaac, were inquiries then made of the prisoner’s father after that 
letter had been received ? A. Yes. 

Q . As a result of those inquiries was an enrolment form in the Officers’ Training 
Corps received by the University signed William Joyce ? Will you be good 
enough to look at it ? Is that dated 21st October, 1922 ? A. Yes. 

Q. Is it headed : “University of London Officers’ Training Corps. Form of 
Contract. To the Officer Commanding. Sir, Being desirous of enrolment 
as a Cadet in the University of London Contingent, Officers’ Training Corps, 

I hereby agree, in consideration of your permitting me to be so enrolled, 
to be bound by the conditions and regulations applicable to, and by the 
rules of, the said contingent at present or from time to time hereafter in 
force ; and I undertake to conform to all such conditions, regulations and 
rules from the date of my enrolment until such time as my resignation 
from the Corps has been tendered and duly accepted. Your obedient 
servant” ? Then is there a signature “William Joyce” over a sixpenny 
stamp? A. Yes. 

Q. And the date, 21st October, 1922? A. Yes. 

Q. I think on the next page of that document there are certain particulars, 
and is it headed, “Particulars to be filled in by Applicant” ? A . Yes. 

Q. Does it read: “Surname: Joyce. Christian Names : William. Place of 
Birth : New York. Date of Birth : 24th April, 1 906. Permanent Address : 
10 Longbeach Road, S.W.ll. Present Address: 10 Longbeach Road, 
S.W.ll. School or Institution of the University (if any): Battersea Poly- 
technic, B’beck” ? A. That has been put in afterwards. 

G- “Birkbeck,” that would be ? A. It is “Birkbeck,” but it has been put in 
afterwards. 

C- “State whether you are a Matriculated Student of the University : Yes. 



40 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Course of Study : Intermediate Science. Public or other School at which 

previously educated: Previous Military Service (if any): Worcestershire 

(four months). No Cert. ‘A’. ” That means “No Certificate ‘A* ” ? 
A. He had not at that time, but he had later. 

Q . “State which of the units of the Contingent you desire to join : Infantry.” 
A. Yes. 

Q. Do you also produce a receipt of Certificate ‘A’ ? Does it read : “Please 
acknowledge receipt of enclosed Certificate ‘A’ (Infantry) Capt. and 
Adjutant, University of London O.T.C., 46 Russell Square, London, 
W.C.l,” and then there is the receipting signature: “William Joyce, 
22nd June, 1922”? A. 1925. 

Q. 1925, I beg your pardon. Do you also produce two Re-engagement 
Contracts, one of them dated 22nd July, 1924 ? A . Yes. 

Q. The other one dated 6th October, 1925 ? Is that right ? A . Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Is that the date? A. Yes. 

Mr. Byrne: Does each of them bear the signature “William Joyce”? A. Yes. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Slade. 

Q, Miss Isaac, having received the letter which you told us about from William 
Joyce, did you write to William Joyce’s father on the 23rd October, 1922 ? 

. A. It was written in the office; I don’t think I actually wrote it, but it 
was written in my office. 

Q. In the office amongst the records was a letter ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you a copy of it there ? “23rd October, 1922. (Blank) Joyce Esq., 
86 Brompton Street, Oldham, Lancs. Dear Sir, Your son, William Joyce, 
has seen me with a view to joining the University of London O.T.C., and 
has also spoken of his desiring to register as a candidate for a Commission 
in the Regular Army. It appears however that he is in doubt as to whether 
he is a ‘British subject of pure European descent.’ From what he tells 
me I think he comes within this definition, as he says you were never 
naturalised as an American. Perhaps, therefore, you would confirm this 
point, when I shall be able to proceed with his enrolment and registration.” 
That is a copy of a letter which was written from your office to the father 
of William Joyce ? A. Yes. 

Q . Do you produce the original of what purports to be a reply, signed, 
“M. F. Joyce,” dated 26th October, 1922, from 86 Brompton Street, 
Oldham? “Capt. Peploe, Adjutant, U.L. O.T.C. Dear Sir, Your letter 
of 23rd October received. Would have replied sooner but have been away 
from home. With regard to my son William. He was born in America, 
I was bom in Ireland, his mother was bom in England. We are all British 
and not American citizens.” I don’t suppose you saw that letter when it 
came, did you, or did you not ? A, l have no recollection of seeing it. 

Q. At any rate, if you had seen it, you would have seen that the point that 
the letter asked to be confirmed — which was William Joyce’s statement 
that his father was never naturalised as an American — is not in fact replied 
to in that letter ? A. No. 

Q . Will you be good enough to look at the copy letter of the 23rd October 
that I have just asked you about ? Will you take it in your left hand 
and that one in your right ? I think the letters speak for themselves. Do 
you see ? “From what he tells me, I think he comes within this definition 
as he says you were never naturalised as an American. Perhaps therefore 
you would confirm this point.” That is the information requested by the 
letter ? A, I think he says : “We are not American citizens.” 

Q . You put the statement “We are not American citizens” as confirmation 
of the statement that he was never naturalised as an American ? A. Yes. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


41 


Harold Godwin, Sworn . 

Examined by Mr. Howard. 

Q. Mr. Harold Godwin, is that your name ? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you an Assistant Passport Officer at His Majesty’s Passport Office 
of the Foreign Office ? A. Yes. 

Q . Will you look at this ? Is it an application form for a British passport, 
accompanied by a covering letter ? A. Yes. 

Q. Taking the covering letter first, is it headed “41 Farquhar Road, S.E.19. 
The Passport Office,” dated 4th July, 1933 ? A. Yes. 

Q. “Gentlemen, I enclose herewith an application for a passport, two photo- 
graphs, and a postal order for fifteen shillings. Despatch of the passport 
through the post would be of great convenience to me. I am, Sirs, Your 
obedient servant, William Joyce” ? A. Yes. 

Q . Then will you be good enough to look at the application form itself. Does 
there appear in the directions to persons who are making the application, 
under the heading “D” : “State exact national status, e.g., a British subject 
by birth, or a British subject by naturalisation, British-protected person, 
etc.”? A . Yes. 

Q . Then under the heading: “Declaration to be made by Applicant for 
Passport,” is it headed, “London, 4th July, 1933” ? A. Yes. 

Q. “I, the Undersigned, William Joyce, at present residing at 41 Farquhar 
Road, S.E.19, London, hereby declare that I am a British Subject by birth, 
having been born at Rutledge Terrace, Galway, Ireland, on the 24th day 
of April, 1906; and not having lost the status of British Subject thus 
acquired, 1 hereby apply for a passport for travelling to Belgium, France, 
Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, for the purpose of holiday touring.” 
Then does it purport to be signed a little lower down, “William Joyce” ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. And at the bottom of the form, under the heading of “Important” are 
there these words: “Applicants, and persons recommending them, are 
warned that, should any of the statements contained in their respective 
declarations prove to be untrue, the consequences to them may be serious” ? 
A. Yes. 

Q . Upon that application, which was accompanied, I think, by a photograph 
of the applicant — is that right? — was a passport granted? A . Yes, 
passport No. 125943. 

Q, That is the number which appears in the top right-hand corner of the 
application form ? A. Yes. 

Q. When was it granted ? A. On the 5th July, 1933. 

Q. For what period ? A. A period of .five years. 

Mr. Howard : My Lord, notice to produce that passport has been given to 
the Defence ; the Prosecution now call for it. 

Mr. Slade : My Lord, I am not in a position to produce it ; my friend may 
use a copy. 

Mr. Howard : Mr. Godwin, are you familiar with the form of passport that 
was issued by the Foreign Office to British subjects at this time ? A. Yes. 

Q . Have you a specimen form of passport exactly similar so far as the formal 
wording is concerned, as the one which was issued to William Joyce? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Will you look at this ? I think it is just inside the cover or front page ; 
is there a sixpenny stamp ? A. Yes. 

(Specimen passport put in.) 

Q. “We, Sir John Allsebrook Simon,” as he then was ; then follow his various 



44 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Q. Whilst you were at Folkestone between the 3rd September and the 10th 
December, do you recollect listening to a broadcast that attracted your 
attention from what was said in it ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you recognise the voice of the person who was broadcasting? 
A. Immediately. 

Q. As whose? A, As the prisoner’s. 

Q. The prisoner’s voice. Can you give the jury any closer date than simply 
between the 3rd September, 1939, and the 10th December, 1939, that 
you heard that voice ? A, To the best of my recollection it was about 
during the first month after the outbreak of war. 

Q. Some time, then, during September or perhaps early October 1939? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Do you recollect anything that you heard the prisoner’s voice say? 
A . Yes. He said that Dover and Folkestone had been destroyed. 

Q. Did that remain firmly in your memory for a very good reason ? A . Yes. 

Q. What was the reason ? A. Well, there had not been any enemy activity 
at all on Folkestone up to that date. 

Q. While you were at Folkestone up until the 10th December, 1939, did you 
ever hear him again on the wireless ? A. Yes, on sundry occasions. 

Q . Did you take any particular note of what he said ? A. No. 

Q. Having returned to London on the 10th December, 1939, did you after 
that hear his voice on the wireless on a number of occasions ? A. Yes. 

Q. In 1940? A. Yes. 

Q. 1941? A. Yes. 

Q. 1942? A. Yes. 

Q. 1943 ? A . Yes. 

Q. And 1944 ? A. Yes. 

Q. Acting in the course of your duty, on the 30th January, 1943, did you 
make a shorthand note of what he said on the wireless ? A . Yes, the 
30th January. 

Q. If you will be good enough to look, is that your book in which you made 
shorthand notes of what you heard the prisoner say during the times that 
you listened to him after you had returned to London ? A. Yes. 

Q. Is one of the dates the 30th January, 1943 ? A. Yes. 

Q. Another one the 8th April, 1943 ? A . Yes. 

Q. The 12th July, 1943? A. Yes. 

Q . Another one the 30th August, 1944 ? A. Yes. 

Q. Is this a transcript of your shorthand notes of what you heard him say 
on the 30th January, 1943? A. Yes. 

Q. Is it a correct transcription of your shorthand notes ? A. It is. 

Q . Now will you look at this ? Is it a correct transcription of your shorthand 
note of what you heard him say on the 8th April, 1943 ? A. The 9th 
April, 1943. I beg your pardon, it is the 8th April. 

Q. Then, if you will look at that, is that a correct transcription of your 
shorthand notes of what you heard him say on the 12th July, 1943 ? A. Yes. 

Q. Lastly, is this a correct transcription of your shorthand notes of what 
you heard him say on the 30th August, 1944 ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Byrne : My Lord, perhaps those transcripts should be read. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Well, do you want them all read entirely ? Perhaps if 
you would choose such passages as you want to read to the jury, then 
Mr. Slade can read any other, and the jury at the appropriate time can see 
the passages. 

Mr. Byrne : Just take, first of all, the one of the 30th January, 1943. A . Yes. 

Q. It begins by the prisoner saying, “In this Proclamation which he addressed 
to the German people, the Fiihrer first called to account the fourteen years’ 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 45 

struggle which preceded the victory of 30th January, 1933.” A . That’s 
right. 

Q. I don’t think there is any particular matter in that until you get to the last 
two paragraphs but one. Do you see where it says, “Hie Filhrer’s 
proclamation,” and then it expresses his gratitude to his soldiers for the — 
and then I think you could not catch all the words — “being enacted from 
the far North to the African desert, from the Atlantic to the wide steppes 
of the East, from the ^Egean to Stalingrad, an epic which will survive 
more than one millennium. It is the Filhrer’s” — then you could not catch 
it all — “to the home front to remain worthy of the heroic deeds done by 
the troops.” The proclamation continues : “The total endeavour of our 
nation must now be increased. The heroic fight of our soldiers on the 
Volga should be” — then there is a blank — “to do his utmost in the struggle 
for the freedom of Germany and thereby in the wider sense for the 
preservation of the whole continent. It was the desire of our enemies to 
threaten peaceful towns and villages with weapons of gruesome destruction. 
In the fracas which our foes forced upon us as they did before in 1914, the 
fracas which represents the ‘to be or not to be’ of our race, the Almighty 
will be the best Judge. Now our task is to fulfil our duties in such a way 
that before Him as the Creator of the Universe and in accordance with 
the” — then there is a blank — “given by Him for the battle of existence, we 
may stand without ever faltering.” So much for that one. Then 

Mr. Justice Tucker : There are two passages that Mr. Byrne has read. Did 
you understand those to be still part of Hitler’s proclamation, or are those 
observations of the prisoner himself? A. They were part of the 
proclamation, my Lord. 

Q. They are all still part of the proclamation ? A. Except the last paragraph, 
and in that paragraph they are the prisoner’s own words. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : That is not the proclamation. 

Mr. Byrne : Just let us look at it. It is a very short one. “From the ruins 
of our towns” 

Mr. Justice Tucker: No, the “fracas” is the last one Mr. Byrne read? 
A. Yes, my Lord. 

Mr. Byrne: Will you look at [your transcript of the 8th April, 1943] ? There 
is only one passage there that I want to draw your attention to. It is a 
paragraph that begins, “There can be only one reason.” Do you see 
that ? A. Yes. 

Q . “There can be only one reason. The Prime Minister blinds himself to 
such prospects, however hypothetical they may be. He is the servant, 
not of the British public or of the British Empire, but of international 
Jewish finance. This charge must be preferred against a man who has 
so signally violated British tradition in the course of this war. If we take 
one example, the Anglo-American raid on Antwerp which resulted in the 
death of more than 2,000 peaceful Belgians and 300 innocent children, this 
provides a striking example of the complete lack of scruple actuating the 
conduct of the British Government. Belgium would never have been 
involved in the war at all. In essence and in substance the Belgians were 
abandoned by the British who had given them the most lavish promises of 
assistance, and now in broad daylight under conditions of excellent 
visibility these people are massacred, not because they are at war with the 
British, but because they no longer serve the purposes of the British 
Government. Such an act of malicious spite is not in my opinion typically 
British. It bears instead the hallmark of Jewish policy which has always 
been directed towards the eradication of Gentiles who could not be made 
to serve the interests of Hebrew domination.” So much for that one. 

If you look at [the transcript of the 12th July, 1943], if you look at the 



46 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


last two paragraphs but one, do you see a passage that begins, “I do not 
propose at the present juncture” ? A. Yes. 

Q. He is there talking about the Italian campaign. Do you see the words, 
“I do not propose at the present juncture to offer any help or advice beyond 
remarking that in Moscow at least, there is no disposition to consider this 
enterprise as a suitable and adequate discharge of an obligation undertaken 
by the British Government to attack Germany from the West in such a 
manner as to provide substantial and appreciable relief for the Soviet 
forces in the East. That the Germans should be gaining any ground, 
however large or however little, from the Bolsheviks whilst the assault on 
Sicily is proceeding, is a phenomenon which finds no place in the scheme 
of enemy strategy. There is no value in premature generalisations, but I 
do not think it rash to predict that in one respect there is a very special 
disappointment in store for the enemy. Churchill seems to have enter- 
tained some crazy notion that if only he could deliver a blow on Italian 
territory, Italy would collapse. It is evident already that the whole Italian 
nation is united as never before and inspired with the ardent determination 
to defend the Fatherland. This resolution need not be described, it will 
be shown in action. In the meantime the war against enemy merchant 
shipping is being vigorously pursued. In the course of armed reconnaissance 
over the Atlantic German planes set on fire two enemy vessels, one of them 
a liner of more than 20,000 gross registered tons. Moreover, it is announced 
that German U-boats have sunk another six merchantmen of 42,000 gross 
registered tons. Thus it is clear that British jubilation over the decrease in 
tonnage losses was, to say the least, ill-timed. As Admiral Llltzow recently 
pointed out, the war at sea has its fluctuations, but these fluctuations do 
not prevent this also having a general tendency, and that tendency is to 
destroy the strategical co-ordination of the foe by disorganising and cutting 
off his supplies” ? A . Yes. 

Q . Just look at [the transcript of the 30th August, 1944], will you, from the 
fifth paragraph which begins, “If you had lived in Germany during the 
first six months of the fifth year of the war, you would have wondered why 
such a high and comfortable standard of living was being maintained; 
why so many people were engaged upon tasks which were not essential to 
the concentrated prosecution of the war. The answer is that the Govern- 
ment of the Reich was not in any way neglectful of its duty or oblivious to 
existing potentialities, but it was thought well to hold large reserves in 
hand. In these generalisations, however, I must accept the disposition 
of the Home Army, a considerable part of which was kept from the fronts 
by those persons who have paid the just penalty and were instantaneously 
crushed on July 20th. In brief, Germany is in a position not only to defend 
itself but with the aid of time to win this war. The chief purpose of 
German strategy at the moment is to gain this time. Gaining time, 
however, does not mean sitting and waiting for something favourable to 
happen. It means causing something favourable to occur, and I can assure 
you that the German people have never been so active in their determination 
to shape the course of events. Our enemies may indulge in short-lived 
jubilation. There is no need to discourage them. This premature cele- 
bration will be transmuted into bitterness and colossal disappointment.” 

Then at the bottom do you see a passage, “When Mr. Cordell Hull 
announced that in the negotiations with Roumania, by which presumably 
he means King Michael and his cronies, the initiative will rest with Moscow, 
he is only confirming once again the fact that Roosevelt and Churchill 
have renounced in favour of Stalin all interest in Europe. On this occasion, 
as on many others, the White House speaks for the British Government 
as well as for itself* ? A. Yes. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


47 


Cross-examined by Mr. Slade. 

g. Inspector, I have to challenge your identification of the prisoner’s voice 
on the occasions you referred to in the first months of the war. Did I 
understand you to say that you have never talked to the prisoner ? A. Yes. 
g. I think in fairness to you that was what you said at Bow Street, was it not ? 
A. Yes. 

g. And when the deposition was read over to you you did not notice that they 
had put down : “I have talked to him” ? A. I don’t recall that, 
g. I am only bringing that out in fairness to yourself. What you intended to 
say and did say there, as here, was that you had never talked to him ? 
A. That is true. 

g. Of course, the statement that Dover and Folkestone had been destroyed, 
in September or up to the 3rd October, 1939, would have been fantastic ? 
A. Not necessarily. 

g . Not necessarily ? A. It could have been destroyed, 
g. Could have been ? The statement was between the 3rd September and 
the 3rd October; I am taking the first months of the war. That statement 
was fantastic ? A. Well, it was really, yes. 
g. Let us see. No bomb of any description was dropped in this country 
until about September 1940, was it ? A. I couldn’t answer for that, 
g. About a year afterwards ? A. I don’t know, 
g. Don’t you really know ? A. No. 

g. After you left Folkestone on the 10th December, 1939, were you stationed 
in London? A. Yes. 

g. And have you been in this country all the war ? A. Yes. 
g. At any rate, leaving out September 1 940, do you not know that no bomb 
was dropped on this country until months after September, 1939 ? A. Well, 
I can only speak from memory ; but I remember the London blitz of the 
7th September, 1940. 
g. That is 1940? A. Yes. 

g. Very well. Of course, you were at Folkestone, you say, when you heard 
this broadcast? A. Yes. 

g. And you say you identified Joyce’s as being the voice which used those 
words ? A. Yes. 

g. I am suggesting to you that you are mistaken ? A. lam not mistaken, 
g. To what station did you tune in ? A. I don’t know, 
g. You don’t know? A. No, I was just tuning in my receiver round the 
wavelengths when I heard the voice, 
g. Just twiddling it round, you heard the voice ? A. Yes. 
g. Was all you heard the words, 4 4 Folkestone and Dover have been destroyed’ ’ ? 

A . No, I heard something else, but I can’t recall it. 
g. Was all you heard that you remember that Folkestone and Dover had been 
destroyed? A. Yes. 

g. Was that sufficient at once to discredit anything that Joyce might thereafter 
say in your mind ? A. Yes. 

Re-examined by The Attorney-General 

g. You said that you had never talked to Joyce. Had you heard him talk ? 
A. Yes. 

g. Has he got a voice which you would recognise again ? A. Yes. 
g. Have you any doubt that it was that voice that you heard in September or 
early October, 1939 ? A. None whatever, 
g. It is suggested to you that the statement that Dover and Folkestone had 
been destroyed would have been a fantastic statement, and we know now, 
of course, that no bombs had in fact been dropped in either of those places 



48 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


at that time; but would that fact have been known to a British soldier 
abroad or by English-speaking listener^ who may have heard that news 
at that time ? 

Mr. Slade: My Lord, is that a question that this detective-inspector can 
answer ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Slade, you asked him the question whether it was 
fantastic or not, which is a matter of opinion. I merely propose to ask 
him whether it meant that it would have been fantastic to anyone who 
heard this in Folkestone or Dover, or whether he was himself of the 
opinion whether or not it would have been fantastic if heard by somebody 
anywhere else. A. No, just to people in Dover or Folkestone then, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Slade, just in the interests of accuracy and to do 
justice to everybody, the deposition that was taken has got die last witness 
down as saying, “I have not talked to him.” 

Mr. Slade: I am obliged, my Lord. The copy that we have been supplied 
with is, “I have.” I knew it was a pure slip in the depositions. 

Alexander Adrian Lickorish, Sworn. 

Examined by The Attorney-General. 

Q. What is your full name, rank and unit? A. Captain, Reconnaissance 
Regiment, R.A.C. 

Q. And your full name ? A. Alexander Adrian. 

Q. Lickorish ? A. Yes, Lickorish. 

Q. On the 28th May of this year in the evening were you in company with a 
Lieutenant Perry in a wood in Germany, somewhere near the Danish 
frontier at Flensburg ? A. I was. 

Q. Were you both engaged in gathering wood to make a fire ? A . We were. 

Q . Whilst you were engaged in doing that did you see anybody ? A. We 
came across a person who appeared to be walking in the woods. 

Q. Who was it ? A. It was the prisoner. 

Q. Did he do or say anything to you ? A . He indicated some fallen wood 
to us and said to us, “Here are a few more pieces.” 

Q . In what language did he speak first ? A. He spoke to us in French, and 
then afterwards in English. 

Q. What did he say in English, do you remember ? A. The words “There 
are a few more pieces here” were spoken in English. 

Q. Did you recognise that voice ? A. I did. 

Q. As what ? A. As that of the announcer or the speaker on the German 
radio. 

Q. And after having some conversation with your companion. Lieutenant 
Perry, did you say something to the prisoner ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did Lieutenant Perry say something in your presence ? A. Lieutenant 
Perry accosted the prisoner. 

Q . What did he say ? A. He said to him, “You wouldn't happen to be 
William Joyce, would you ?” 

Q. What did the prisoner then do ? A. The prisoner went to put his hand 
in his pocket, and Perry fired his revolver. 

Q. What happened ? A. The prisoner fell to the ground, saying, “My name 
is Fritz Hansen.” 

Q. What did you do ? A. I, thinking the same as Perry that he was armed, 
rushed over to him to get his weapon from him, and searched him at the 
same moment and found two passports on his person. 

Q . Did you find any weapon ? A. No, he was unarmed. 

Q. I think he was in fact wounded in the leg ? A. He was wounded in 
the leg. 




IM NAMEN 

DES DEUTSCHEN VOLKES 

VERLEIHE ICH 


DAS 

KRIEGSVERDIENSTKREUZ 
i. KLASSE 


DER FtiHRER 


hitler's award to joyce- 



JOYCE'S ‘"WILHELM HANSEN" PASSPORT 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


49 


Q. You then searched him, and you found what? A. I found two 
passports. 

Q. Would you look at this ? A. That is one of them. 

Q. Is that a German passport ? A. That is a Reisepass. 1 

Q. Would you look at this ? What is this ? A. That is the other one, a 
Wehrpass 2 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, there will be evidence later translating this 
document, and if your Lordship pleases we propose to read them to the 
jury at that stage. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes. 

The Attorney-General : Then I think you treated his wound, and he was in 
due course taken down to the frontier post ? A. That is correct. 

Q . And you handed the two documents you found over to another officer ? 
A. To the Guard Commander. 

Mr. Slade : I have no questions to ask. 

William James Scarden, Sworn . 

Examined by Mr. Howard. 

Q. Is your name William James Scarden ? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you a Captain in the Intelligence Corps ? A. I am. 

Q. On the 16th May of this year did you carry out a search at the radio station 
at Luxemburg ? A. I did. 

Q. Amongst other documents did you find this there? A. Yes. 

Q. It is a document in German and bearing upon it a signature ? A. Yes. 

Q. Purporting to be William Joyce ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you seen the prisoner write ? A. I have. 

Q. And sign his name. In your view is that his signature ? A. It is. 

Q. On the 31st May of this year at about a quarter to 1 1 in the morning did 
you see the prisoner at a hospital in Luneburg? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you say anything to him ? A. Yes. 

Q. What ? A. I told him my name, and I said, “I am charged with the duty 
of making enquiries into the activities of British subjects employed by the 
enemy during the course of the war. There is abundant evidence to show 
that you have been working for the German broadcasting services, and it 
is proposed to present a case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I 
have to ask you certain formal questions relating to your nationality, 
and I must caution you that you are not obliged to say anything and that 
anything you do say will be taken down in writing and given in evidence 
should proceedings be taken.” 

Q. Did the prisoner make any answer to that ? A. Yes, he said, “Of course 
I am quite prepared to answer questions, but I would like to consider 
whether I will make a statement or not.” 

Q . Did you put a number of questions to him ? A. Yes. 

Q. With regard to what ? A. To his nationality. 

Q. Did he reply to them ? A. Yes. 

£>. Did you make a note of his replies ? A. Yes. 

Q . Having done that, what did you say to him ? A. I left him and told him 
that I would call again in the afternoon. 

Q • Did you see him in the afternoon ? A . Yes, at 2.30 p.m. the same day. 

Q. What did he say then ? A. Joyce said, “I would like to make a statement.” 

Q. You told my Lord and the jury you made a note of the replies made by 
the prisoner to the questions you put to him in the morning ? A. Yes. 

1 Travel permit. 

• Military passport. 

D 



50 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Q. Did you write down the statement that he made, or did he write it himself? 
A. I wrote down the statement. First of all, I started the statement 
with the replies to the questions in the morning; and then I cautioned 
him and wrote a caution into the statement. The prisoner signed that 
caution and then he dictated the statement, which I wrote down at his 
dictation. 

Q. When it was completed did he read it through ? A. I passed it to him, 
he read it through and then he signed it. 

Q. Will you look at this ? A. Yes, this is the statement. 

Q. Is that the statement and also the replies to the questions that you had asked? 
A , Yes. 

Mr. Howard : My Lord, it had better be read again. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes. 

Mr. Howard: “74 General Hospital, Liineberg, Germany. 31st May, 1945. 
Statement of William Joyce, who saith : I was born in Brooklyn, U.S.A., 
on 24th April, 1906. My father was Michael Joyce and my mother 
Gertrude Emily Brooke. My father was born in Ireland in or near 
Ballinrobe and my mother was born in Lancashire at Shaw. I understand, 
though I have no documents to prove my statement, that my father was 
American by naturalisation at the time of my birth and I believe he lost 
his American citizenship later through failing to renew it because we left 
America in 1909 when I was three years old. We were generally counted 
as British subjects during our stay in Ireland and England. I was in Ireland 
from 1909 till 1921 when I came to England. We were always treated as 
British during the period of my stay in England, whether we were or not. 
In 1940 1 acquired German nationality. I believe the date was September 
26th but the certificate of naturalisation is not in my possession. The only 
evidence I can offer in support of my statement is the entry in my Wehrpass 
issued subsequent to my naturalisation where I am put down as of German 
nationality. I have been cautioned that I am not obliged to say anything. 
I understand that proceedings may be taken against me and that whatever 
I say may be written down and given in evidence.” Then does there follow 
the signature, “William Joyce” ? A. Yes. 

Q. “I take this opportunity of making a preliminary statement concerning 
the motives which led me to come to Germany and to broadcast to Britain 
over the German radio service. I was actuated not by the desire for personal 
gain, material or otherwise, but solely by political conviction. I was brought 
up as an extreme Conservative with strong Imperialistic ideas, but very 
early in my career, namely, in 1923, became attracted to Fascism and 
subsequently to National Socialism. Between the years 1923 and 1939 I 
pursued vigorous political activities in England, at times as a Conservative 
but mainly as a Fascist or National Socialist. In the period immediately 
before this war began I was profoundly discontented with the policies 
pursued by British Governments, first, because I felt that they would lead 
to the eventual disruption of the British Empire, and secondly, because 
I thought the existing economic system entirely inadequate to the needs 
of the times. I was very greatly impressed by constructive work which 
Hitler had done for Germany and was of the opinion that throughout 
Europe as also in Britain there must come a reform on the lines of National 
Socialist doctrine, although I did not suppose that every aspect of National 
Socialism as advocated in Germany would be accepted by the British people. 

“One of my dominant beliefs was that a war between Britain and 
Germany would be a tragedy, the effects of which Britain and the British 
Empire would not survive, and I considered that a grossly disproportionate 
influence was exerted on British policy by the Jews who had their reasons 
for hating National Socialist Germany. When in August, 1939, the final 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


51 


crisis emerged I felt that the question of Danzig offered no just cause for 
a world war. As by reason of my opinions I was not conscientiously 
disposed to fight for Britain against Germany, I decided to leave the country 
since I did not wish to play the part of a conscientious objector, and since 
I supposed that in Germany I should have the opportunity to express 
and propagate views the expression of which would be forbidden in Britain 
during time of war. Realising, however, that at this critical juncture 
I had declined to serve Britain, I drew the logical conclusion that I should 
have no moral right to return to that country of my own free will and 
that it would be best to apply for German citizenship and make my 
permanent home in Germany. Nevertheless, it remained my undeviating 
purpose to attempt as best I could to bring about a reconciliation or at 
least an understanding between the two countries. After Russia and the 
United States had entered the war such an agreement appeared to me no 
less desirable than before for, although it seemed probable that with these 
powerful allies Britain would succeed in defeating Germany, I considered 
that the price which would ultimately have to be paid for this help would 
be far higher than the price involved in a settlement with Germany. 

This belief was strengthened from month to month as the power of 
Russia grew, and during the later stages of the war I became certain that 
Britain, even though capable of gaining a military triumph over the Germans, 
would in that event be confronted with a situation far more dangerous and 
complicated than that which existed in August 1939; and thus until the 
very last moment I clung to my hope of an Anglo-German understanding, 
although I could see that the prospects thereof were small. I know that 
I have been denounced as a traitor and I resent the accusation as I conceive 
myself to have been guilty of no underhand or deceitful act against Britain, 
alt ough I am also able to understand the resentment that my broadcasts 
have in many quarters aroused. Whatever opinion may be formed at 
the present time with regard to my conduct, I submit that the final judgment 
cannot be properly passed until it is seen whether Britain can win the peace. 
Finally I should like to stress the fact that in coming to Germany and in 
working for the German radio system my wife was powerfully influenced 
by me. She protests to the contrary but I am sure that, if I had not taken 
this step, she would not have taken it either. This statement has been 
read over to me, and it is true. (Signed) William Joyce.” A . Yes. 

Q. On the 1st June did you see the prisoner again ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you there produce to him certain documents ? A. Yes. 

fi. Would you look first of all at this copy of a birth certificate ? A . Yes. 

Q * Is it headed: “New York. November 2nd, 1917?” A. Yes. 

Q. “A Transcript from the Records of the Births reported to the Department 
of Health of The City of New York.” Then, “State of New York. 
Certificate and Record of Birth. Name of Child: William Joyce. Sex: 
Male. Colour: White. Date of Birth: April 24th, 1906. Place of 
Birth: 1377 Herkimer Street. Father’s Name : Michael Joyce. Father’s 
Residence: 1377 Herkimer Street. Father’s Birthplace : Ireland. Father’s 
Age: 36 years. Father’s Occupation: Contractor. Mother’s Marriage 
Name: Gertrude Emily Joyce. Mother’s Name before Marriage: 

Gertrude Emily Brooke. Mother’s Residence : 1377 Herkimer 

Street. Mother’s Birthplace: England. Mother’s Age: 26 years.” 
Then does it appear to be signed by “Charles F. Yerdon, Physician ?” 
A . Yes, that is so ; there is a typewritten name. 

Q • Will you look at this letter in German headed “Berlin, 26th June, 1942,” 
apparently addressed to William Joyce ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Howard: My Lord, that will be translated. {To the witness) Now 



52 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


will you look at this ? Is it a contract, again written in German, between 
the German radio authorities and William Joyce? A. Yes. 

Q. Will you look at this? Is it the document in German awarding the 
War Cross of the 1st Class to William Joyce ? A . Yes. 

Q. Now look at this. Is it a card, again in German, “Deutscher Volkssturm 
apparently relating to William Joyce ? A. Yes. 

Q . And this. Is this a certificate in German ? A. Yes. 

Q. Now will you look at this ? Is it another document in German ? A . Yes. 

Q . Headed “ Arbeitsbuch ” l on the front page ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Did you produce this to him at the same time as the 
others were produced? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Howard: Looking at the first page of that document, does that bear 
the signature “William Joyce” upon it ? A. Yes. 

Q . You told my Lord and the jury that you had seen the prisoner write. Is 
that his signature ? A . Yes, sir. 

Q . Did you produce all these various documents that you have been referring 
to to the prisoner ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you ascertain whether or not they were his property ? A. Yes, sir. 
He said, “Yes, they are all my property.” 

Q. Look at these documents. (To the Judge) My Lord, this is for the 
purpose of identifying signatures. (To the witness ) Those are the 
application and renewal forms for the passport. Do you see what 
purports to be on those documents the signature of William Joyce ? A. 
Yes. 

Q. Is that the signature of the prisoner ? A. Yes. 

Q . Now will you look at the Wehrpass ? Does that bear upon it the signature 
of William Joyce ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now will you look at the contract ? At the end of the contract does there 
appear the signature of the prisoner ? A. On page 3. 

Q. You have already dealt with the Work Book. That bears the signature of 
the prisoner, does it ? A . Yes. 

Q . Is that right ? A. Yes. 

Q. Now will you look at these three documents ? (To the Judge) My Lord, 
those are additional exhibits, (To the witness) The first one is a letter to 
the secretary of the Military Education Committee. Does that bear the 
signature of the prisoner, “William Joyce” ? A. Yes. 

Q. And is that another letter ? A. Yes. 

Q. And this is the enrolment form. Does that bear his signature ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. This is a receipt for Certificate “A.” Is that his signature ? A. Yes. 

Q. Here are two forms of contract for re-engagement in the Officers Training 
Corps. Do they bear his signature ? A . Yes. 

Q. Take the Wehrpass and the Work Book. Look first of all at the Work 
Book. Does that bear just under the heading of “Work Book” a number 
40/A1 66525 ? A. Yes. 

Q. Now will you look at the Wehrpass*] Does that bear upon the front page 
of it, on the left-hand side under a heading, the same number 40/A1 66525 ? 
A . Yes. 


Cross-examined by Mr. Slade. 

Q. Captain Scarden, would you mind telling me when the birth certificate 
first came into your possession ? A . Yes, sir; on the day before I put it 
to him. 


* Work Book 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


53 


Q. You saw Joyce in the hospital at Liineburg on the 31st May ? A. That 
is so. 

Q. And you saw him again on the 1st June ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q . May I take it that the birth certificate was in your possession on the 30th 
May? A. That is so. 

Q . Was that why you put the question to him about his nationality ? A. No, 
sir, I did not examine the property at all as a matter of fact. It was in my 
possession, but I did not examine it. 

Q . You hadn’t looked at the birth certificate at all ? A . No, sir. 

Q. At any rate you did not find the birth certificate on him, did you ? A. No, 
sir. 

Q . At the time that you were putting the question to him about his nationality, 
did he know that it was in your possession ? A. I think he must have 
done, but I don’t know. 

Q . If you don’t know, on what grounds do you think he must have known ? 
Did you tell him ? A. No, sir. He knew he was in custody; he knew 
that his property was in custody, and I could only assume that he must 
have known that I had it. 

Q. It only in fact came into your possession for the first time on the morning 
of the previous day, didn’t it ? A. Yes. 

Q. You have been identifying various signatures of William Joyce ? A. Yes. 

Q. If you look at the birth certificate, what that shows or purports to show is 
that he was born on 24th April, 1906 ? A. Yes. 

Q. Would you look at one of the exhibits of the year 1922 — the one will do, 
for example, which is dated the 9th August, 1922, is it not? A. Yes. 

Q. If the date on the birth certificate is correct, on the 9th August, 1922, Joyce 
would have been sixteen years and four months old? A. Yes, sir. 

Q . When was the first occasion on which you saw him sign his name ? A. On 
the 31st May. 

Q. The 31st May, 1945? A. 1945. 

Q. If the birth certificate is right, he would then have been almost exactly 
thirty-nine years old? A. Yes, that’s right. 

Q. So that the disparity in years between those two signatures is roughly 
twenty-three years and you don’t find any difficulty whatever in recognising 
the signature of a man of thirty-nine as being the same as that of a boy of 
sixteen ? A. I find changes there, but I find similar characteristics. 

Q. I will put my question again. I don’t challenge your veracity in the least. 
Please don’t think that, Captain Scarden. You find changes, don’t you ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. In spite of those changes, may I take it that you find no difficulty in 
identifying the signature of a man of thirty-nine with the signature of a boy 
of sixteen. A . No, sir. 

( Adjourned for a short time.) 

Samuel Lopez Salzedo, Sworn . 

Examined by Mr. Byrne. 

Q. Is your name Samuel Lopez Salzedo ? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you a translator and interpreter of foreign languages ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you translated a number of documents which are exhibits in this 
case? A. I have. 1 

Q . Will you be good enough first of all to look at the German passport in the 
name of Hansen ? Have you translated that document ? A. Yes. 

(?. Will you look at this ? Is this your translation of it ? A. Yes. 

Q • All these translations are correct, are they, Mr. Salzedo ? A. They are. 



54 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Q. Looking at your translation, docs the document read in this way: on the 
cover does it say, “German State” ? A. Yes. 

Q. And then on the first page, “German State Passport No. 281/44. Name 
of Holder : William Hansen.” A. “Wilhelm Hansen.” 

Q . “Accompanied by his wife.” A. Yes. 

Q. “And by,” and then there is a place left blank for children. A. Yes. 

Q . “Nationality: German.” A. Yes. 

Q. On the second page is there a photograph ? A . Yes. 

Q. A photograph of the prisoner apparently, looking at him ? A . Yes. 

Q. So that apparently his name was “Wilhelm Hansen” for the purpose of 
this document. A. Yes. 

Q. Then is there a signature under the photograph ? A. Yes. 

Q. “Wilhelm Hansen” ? A. Yes. 

Q. “It is hereby certified that the holder is the person appearing in the above 
photograph and has signed in his own hand the signature appearing 
below. Hamburg. November 3rd, 1944. Chief of Police,” and then 
there is a signature, is there ? A. Yes. 

Q. Does the third page read in this way, “Personal description. Calling: 
Teacher. Birthplace: Galway, Ireland. Date of birth: March 11th, 
1906. Residence: Hamburg. Build: Medium. Face: Oval. Colour 
of eyes: Blue-grey. Colour of hair: Dark blond. Particular identification 
marks: Scar, right cheek” ? A. Yes. 

Q. Now will you look at your translation of the Wehrpass ? On the cover 
does it read, “Military passport” ? A. Yes. 

Q. On page 1, “Military Number: Berlin,” and then there is a number, 
“Name of holder: William Joyce. Number of Identity Card.” Is there 
any number given ? A. No, that is left blank. 

G. “Number of Work Book [40 A1 66525] 27” and then an “i” ? A. Yes. 

Q. “Number of identification marks (in war)” — is that left blank ? A. That 
is left blank. 

Q. Then there is some address, “Berlin W.15.” A. Yes. 

Q. “Stamp of Military District” ? A. Yes. 

Q. And then a signature purporting to be that of the Military District 
Commander. Is that right? A. Yes. 

Q. On page 2 is there the stamp of the Military District and a photograph 
of the prisoner ? A. Yes. 

Q. And the signature, “William Joyce”? A. Yes, described as “Actual 
signature of holder.” 

Q. Yes. Then on pages 3 and 4, “Personal particulars. Surname: Joyce. 
Christian name: William. Birth: 24th April, 1906. Birthplace: New 
York, U.S.A. Nationality: German, formerly English. Religion: 
Believer. Family status: Married.” A. Yes. 

Q. “Profession according to professional register” and then in brackets 
“(Studied) Talks and literature.” Is that right ? A. Yes, that is right. 

Q. And then in brackets the word “(Exercised)” and then “Speaker on the 
Reich Radio.” Is that right ? A . Yes. 

Q. “Parents. Father: Michael Joyce, Architect. Mother: Gertrude Joyce. 
Maiden name: Brooke. Education: University. Knowledge of foreign 
languages : English, perfect English-German. Professional, technical 
or sporting qualifications : Swimming, riding and boxing.” A. Yes. 

Q . Page 5, “Registration: Registered as liable to military service. Military 
District Headquarters, Berlin X, 12th Februap^, 1941.” A. Yes. 

Q . “Decision: Category K.V. Army Service position 1st Reserve 1.” Is that 
right ? A . Yes. 

Q . Then there is the signature of a military district commander ? A. Yes. 

Q. Now look at this document, will you, and your translation of it ? Does 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


55 


the document read in this way: “German European radio transmitter, 
Head Broadcasting Station, Luxemburg. Payment Order” ? A. Yes. 

Q. “Cashbook” with a number and date, and “Date of letter of instructions, 
10th February, 1944” ? A. Yes. 

Q. “Pay Office is instructed,” and then “To Mr. William Joyce, Luxemburg, 

~ Hotel Alfa,” and then “Account No.” and then there are certain numbers 
shown, “Usual residence Berlin Chari” — would that be “Charlottenburg” ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. “Kastanienallee, 29,” Then, “Sound record to pay following fee.” 
Then it says, “Day of week, date, time,” and then does it give 16,10, 
apparently the 16th October ? A. Yes. 

Q. 9.12, 15.12 and then 22.1 and 22.30 ? A. Yes. 

Q . Apparently the hours ? A. Yes. 

Q. “Title of broadcast : Views on the News. English propaganda. Talks, 
manuscript and talks at 50. Remuneration, 200.” A. Yes. 

Q . “Collaboration in the broadcasting or recording took place,” and then, 
“Above amount acknowledged to have been received, Luxemburg, 11th 
February, 1944,” and there is a signature “William Joyce.” “Receipt only 
to be made out on receipt of the account at the pay office subject to approval 
of the Berlin directorate,” and then “Reich-Rundfunk G.m.b.H. Luxemburg 
Station, German Europe Broadcasting Studio. Principal Station, Luxem- 
burg.” A. Yes. 

Q. Is it a receipt for 200 marks ? A. Yes. 

Q, Now will you look at this document and your translation of it ? Does it 
read in this way: “Foreign Director, Dr. Wilkelnkemper, Berlin, 26th 
June, 1942. To Mr. William Joyce. I hereby appoint you with effect 
as from the 1.7 of this year as chief commentator for the group of countries 
‘England.’ This is an instruction to you to prepare the political comments 
in the English language for our news service in accordance with the directions 
of the superior authorities and suggestions by the director of the group 
of countries. I also ask you to examine the news services from the language 
point of view and to allocate the announcers in concert with the editorial 
chief who is on duty. In order that you may obtain the necessary time 
for your further extended duties you are released from the news announce- 
ment service. Having regard to your extended responsibility and your 
many years of efficiency as an announcer and commentator, I am considering 
a readjustment of your remuneration. You will hear further on this matter 
shortly,” and then is there a signature “(Signed) Winkelnkemper ?” 
A. Yes. 

Q. Now will you look at this contract and your translation. (7b the Judge) 
My Lord, it is not probably necessary to read ail of this, but I will if my 
learned friend desires me to. But there are one or two clauses I would 
draw attention to. (To the witness) Does that read, “Contract between 
the Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H. Berlin-Charlottenburg. Mr. William 
Joyce?” A. Yes. 

Q. Then, in brackets, “(Wilhelm Frohlich) of Berlin. The following contract 
is concluded.” Then Clause 1 : “Mr. William Joyce is appointed Head 
Commentator in the English editorial department of German broadcasting 
stations for Europe. His work will be arranged according to the plan of 
distribution of business prepared by the Foreign Directorate. In other 
respects the mutual rights and obligations are determined by the provisions 
below of this contract. The regulations as to remuneration of the Reichs- 
Rundfunk G.m.b.H. will not apply save in so far as they are hereinafter 
expressly referred to. Clause 2: Mr. William Joyce wifi receive a gross 
monthly salary of 1,200 Reichsmarks (one thousand two hundred Reichs- 
marks) payable in advance on the 1st of each month. This salary covers 



56 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


all claims of Mr. William Joyce against the Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H. 
in respect of his work on behalf of the latter unless shift or Sunday extra 
work is done for service reasons. In addition to the salary children’s 
allowances will be granted to the same amount and on the same conditions 
as in the case of the remaining members of the permanent staff of the 
Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H. The Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H. will during 
the currency of the contract grant an additional allowance for maintenance 
of 4i per cent of the monthly salary including the children’s allowance 
in accordance with Section 1 of the appended annexe to the service contract. 
At Christmas Mr. Willaim Joyce will receive a special bonus under Clause 
10 of the remuneration regulations of the Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H.” 
Then Clause 7 reads, “Mr. William Joyce is bound to place the whole of 
his work at the disposal of the company.” And Clause 8, “The carrying 
on of any accessory occupation by Mr. William Joyce is only permissible 
with the express consent of the directorate. He has no right to enter into 
obligations of an exclusive character towards firms producing gramophone 
records.” And Clause 10 reads: “This contract comes into force on and 
from July 1st, 1942. The period of notice of termination is three months, 
to end at the close of a calendar quarter. Berlin-Charlottenburg, July 
3rd, 1942. Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H.” And then there is a signature. 
Is that right ? A. Yes. 

Q . And after that there is the signature of “W. Joyce” ? A. Yes, first a 
German signature, and then Mr. Joyce’s signature. 

Q . Now will you look at this ? It is the award of the Cross of Merit in War, 
and your translation. Does that read, “In the name of the German People 
1 award to the Chief Commentator William Joyce of Berlin-Charlottenburg 
the Cross of War-Merit of the First Class. Fiihrer’s Headquarters, 
1st September, 1944, The Fiihrer,” and are there two signatures “A. Hitler” 
and “Meissner” ? A. Yes. 

Q . Now will you look at this document and your translation? It is a 
Volkssturm card, is it ? A. Yes. 

Q. “German Volkssturm, Gau” — is that Berlin? A. Yes. 

Q . “Name: Joyce. Christian name: William. Bom on 24.4.1906 in New 
York. Residing at 29”— what has that got after it ? A. “Kastanienallee, 
Berlin-Charlotten burg. ” 

Q . “Is a member of the German Volkssturm. German Volkssturm, Berlin 
District, V Battalion, Wilhelmplatz I.” Is that dated, “Berlin, 21st 
December, 1944” ? A. Yes. 

Q . And signed by somebody — does it look like G. Knispel ? A . Yes. 

Q. “Local Group Chief.” A. Yes. 

Q. Now look at this document. Does it read “Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesell- 
schaft (Broadcasting Company for the Realm)” ? Is that the transmitting 
company for the realm ? A. Yes. 

Q. “The German transmitting stations for Europe Board of Management 
Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H. (1) Berlin-Charlottenburg 9, Masurenallee. 
Certificate to be produced at the booking office. (1) Berlin-Charlottenburg 
9, Masurenallee 8-14. 29.3.1945. We hereby certify on behalf of Mr. 
and Mrs. William Joyce, collaborators in the English editorial department 
of the German transmitters for Europe, that they have temporarily been 
transferred to the transmitting station of Eupen. As it may be necessary 
for service reasons for Mr. and Mrs. Joyce to have to return to Berlin at 
any time, we request that a corresponding re-notification of journey be 
handed them.” Is that signed by somebody called “Hopp” ? A. Yes. 

Q. Signing apparently for the “Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H.,” the German 
transmitters for Europe ? A. Yes. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 57 

Q. Now this document and your translation. On the cover does it read 
“German State Work Book” ? A. Yes. 

Q. And then on page 1, “Work Book (Law of 26th February, 1935, State 
Gazette, page 311)” ? A. Yes. 

Q . And then “No. 40/A1 66525,” which as we know corresponds with the 
number of the Wehrpass . “Name: William Joyce,” and then, “Actual 
signature of holder,” and there is the signature, “W. Joyce” ? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, page 2. “Date of birth: 24th April, 1906. Birthplace: Galway. 
District: Ireland. Nationality: Great Britain.” A. Yes. 

Q. “Family status: Married. Place of residence and address: Berlin, 
Friedrichstrasse 30; Berlin-Charlottenburg” — how do you pronounce the 
next word, Mr. Salzedo ? A. Steifensandstrasse 4. 

Q. And then the next one, “Berlin-Charlottenburg”? A. Kastanienallee 29. 

Q. Then on page 3, “Vocational training. School training: Honours, London 
University, 1923-1932.” A. Yes. 

Q. “Special qualifications (e.g., driver’s licence for motor vehicles),” and the 
special qualification seems to be “English” ? A. Yes. 

Q. Then on page 4, which has the heading “Only to be filled in by Labour 
Office. Previous occupations of long duration: 1, Lecturer, Victoria 
Tutorial College, London, England, from 13.9.26 to 16.4.33. 2, Director 
of Propaganda and deputy leader, British Union of Fascists, National 
Socialists, London, England, 16.4.33-11.3.37. 3, Leader, British National 

Socialist Party, London, England, 2.4.37-27.8.39. 4, Editor and speaker, 
German Radio Company, Berlin-Charlottenburg, 19.9.39,” and then 
there is a blank for the column headed “To,” meaning how long it has 
gone on for, in other words — that is left blank ? A. Yes. 

Q. On page 5, “Occupational Group: 27. Class of occupation: i. Issued 
on 4th October, 1939.” And there is the stamp of the Labour Office and a 
signature. Is that right? A. Yes, quite correct. 

Q. On pages 6 and 7, “Entry by employers. Name and place of concern: 
German Radio Company, Berlin-Charlottenburg 9, Masurenallee 8-14. 
Date of beginning of employment: 18th September, 1939. Nature of 
employment: Announcer of English news. Reichs-Rundfunk G.m.b.H. 
Berlin-Charlottenburg.” Then “No. 2 German Radio Company” is 
the “Name and Place of Concern.” “Berlin-Charlottenburg. Nature of 
business: German Broadcasts for Europe. Date of beginning of employ- 
ment: 1st July, 1942. Nature of employment: Head commentator in 
English section.” Is that right ? A. Quite correct. 

Mr. Slade: I have no questions. 

Frank Bridges, Sworn . 

Examined by Mr. Howard. 

Q. Are you Frank Bridges, Chief Inspector, New Scotland Yard ? A. Yes. 

Q. At twenty minutes past four on the afternoon of Saturday, the 16th June of 
this year, did you see the prisoner ? A. I did, sir. 

Q. After he had arrived in this country under military escort? A. That 
is so. 

Q . What did you say to him ? A. I said that I was a police officer, that I 
was going to arrest him and take him to Bow Street where he would be 
charged with high treason. I cautioned him and he said, “Yes, thank 
you.” 

Q. Later that day was he charged ? A. He was, sir. 

£>. What with ? A. He was charged with treason under the Treason Act, 
1351. 

Q . Was the charge read over to him ? A. It was, sir, and he was cautioned, 



58 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

and he replied, “I have heard and taken cognisance. To-day I shall not 
add anything to the statement I have made to the military authorities.” 

Mr. Slade: No questions. 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, that is the case for the Crown. 


DEFENCE 

Mr. Slade : My Lord, I submit to your Lordship as a matter of law that there 
is no case to go to the jury upon any of the three counts, the subject-matter 
of this indictment. 

The three counts are all alike in two respects: each of them in the 
statement of the offence alleges that William Joyce was then, that is to say, 
at the material date, a person owing allegiance to our Lord the King. 
Upon the face of the indictment there is nothing to distinguish between 
counts 1 and 2, and indeed, until I heard my friend the Attorney-General 
upon the case on the third count, I had not appreciated there was any 
distinction between them, except that the lesser count 3 was included in the 
greater which is count 1 in period of time. But, as he has now been good 
enough to tell me what his case is on that point, I will deal with that separ- 
ately. I gather no one disputes now that as to both these counts 1 and 2 
the Prosecution must establish — of course, it is sufficient at the present 
moment that they should show merely a prima facie case — that William 
Joyce is a British subject ; because if he is an alien, apart from count 3 
he can only owe allegiance to His Majesty the King so long as he is within 
the King’s dominions, and in this case it is alleged that the acts complained 
of were done outside His Majesty’s dominions, namely, in the German 
realm. 

The third count, as now explained by my learned friend the Attorney- 
General, says, as t understand it, this: Notwithstanding that to-day 
you are not a British subject, if the Prosecution fail to prove that you are, 
notwithstanding the fact that the offences are alleged to have taken place 
outside His Majesty’s dominions, you nevertheless, being an alien — assuming 
that against the Prosecution for this purpose — and being outside the 
King’s dominions, owe allegiance to His Majesty the King because you 
have by what must ex hypothesi be false statements obtained possession of 
British passport. That, of course, is a pure question of law. 

With regard to counts 1 and 2 I am now submitting to your Lordship 
that there is not even prima facie evidence to go to the jury that William 
Joyce is or ever has been a British subject. Nationality is a question of 
status : it is not a question of contract or mere position ; it is a question of 
status, and status must be in every case a question of mixed fact and law so 
far as this country’s nationality is concerned, it being of course a question 
of English law. My submission to your Lx>rdship really comes to this, 
that, if I am a Chinese, by screaming from the housetops fifty thousand 
times that I am a British subject I do not become one ; secondly, by making 
fifty thousand declarations that 1 am a British subject I do not become one ; 
thirdly, by swearing on oath that I am a British subject or by a statutory 
declaration I do not become one. And it makes no difference whether I 
make those statements because I honestly believe them to be true or whether 
I make them for some ulterior motive of obtaining a British passport. I 
cannot alter my status nor can I create a status by anything which I can 
do. In other words, it takes two people at least to make status: the 
person who is the subject, and the Crown in this country who by Act of 
Parliament or otherwise at common law confers that status upon persons. 

May 1 take one illustration to show your Lordship what I am submitting 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


59 


and can I preface it with this remark ? When a person says that he was 
bom in London. on the 14th October, 1891, that is and must be pure 
hearsay because he cannot possibly say when he was bom or where he was 
bom. He is only repeating what someone else has told him. I will 
take a stronger case than that against myself. Supposing a man were 
charged with bigamy, marriage of course being a question of status, and 
the prosecution, having proved the second ceremony of marriage, put a 
witness into the box who said, “I was present at the wedding breakfast 
and, as the bridegroom was about to cut the cake, I heard him turn to his 
bride and say, ‘I think I might just as well tell you now that 1 am married 
already and my wife is still living.’ ” A witness having been put into the 
witness box to testify to that statement being made by the bridegroom, 
in my respectful submission that would be no evidence whatever, not even 
prima facie evidence, that the prisoner was married, that he enjoyed the 
status of a married man, and that his wife was still living at the time of 
the second ceremony of marriage. 

My Lord, I do not wish to worry your Lordship with a long submission 
and a large number of authorities in support of it, if it has to be done twice 
over ; and I only want to adopt the practice which is more convenient to 
the court. So far as the first submission is concerned, certainly at some 
stage of this trial I shall have to trouble your Lordship with a reference 
to the authorities: firstly, as to what constitutes a British subject and, 
secondly, as to the duration of what my friend the Attorney-General has 
rightly called local as opposed to natural allegiance. That question, of 
course, must arise on the third count. So far as that count is concerned, 

1 respectfully submit it can only be a pure question of law as to which there 
can be no question at all for the jury . Putting it in its baldest possible form, 
it means this, that a person not being a British subject, that is to say, an 
alien, can in certain circumstances owe allegiance to His Majesty the 
King while he is outside His Majesty’s dominions. In my respectful 
submission there is no authority for that statement of the law anywhere. 
If there is, I have not been able to find it, except one reference to a passage 
which I may have to deal with in due course, in Foster's Crown Law in 1809. 

One other word before I ask your Lordship which is the more convenient 
course for me to adopt, because at some time or other I should like to have 
the advantage of hearing the Attorney-General’s legal arguments so as to 
have an opportunity of replying to them. It may be that your Lordship 
may think that this is the convenient stage to do it. Quite apart from my 
submission I admit, of course, that the Crown only has to show a pritna 
facie case that William Joyce is a British subject, and the statements which 
Joyce has made I have summarised. 

Put shortly, my four points are these : firstly, that status is a question of 
mixed fact and law; secondly, that admissions are pure hearsay, so-called 
admissions ; thirdly, as I shall show your Lordship in a moment, they are 
themselves contradictory, although I appreciate that that would not mean 
that there was not some evidence, if I am wrong, I mean, on the second 
point; and, fourthly — which is more of a comment — that, if William Joyce 
was in fact born in Ireland, nothing would have been simpler than for some 
witness for the Prosecution to have produced his birth certificate, because 
there are Acts in force with regard to the registration of births in Ireland 
just as there are in England and Wales under the 1837 Act. I therefore 
submit to your Lordship on those grounds that so far, as counts 1 and 

2 are concerned, the admissions which have been made — I will just summarise 
them — are not prima facie evidence of what is a mixed question of fact 
and law, namely, the status of William Joyce. I hope I have got them 
accurately. Summarising the various statements with the dates, there are 



60 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


the declaration to obtain a passport, dated the 4th July, 1933 — May I give them 
to your Lordship very shortly ? — “British subject by birth, bom in Galway 
24th April, 1906.” “British subject by birth” — that is dated the 24th 
September, 1938, and it was the first application for renewal. Again 
“British subject by birth,” second application for renewal, dated 24th 
August, 1939. Then, dated the 3rd of November, 1944, in the German 
passport, page 3, the birthplace is stated to be Galway, Ireland, and the 
date of birth, 11th March, 1906. On the 12th April, 1941, the birthplace 
is stated to be New York, U.S.A., and the nationality German, formerly 
English. Then the prisoner’s statement, made on the 31st of May, 1945, 
“born in Brooklyn, U.S.A., 24th April, 1906;” and the birth certificate 
which was issued on the 2nd November, 1917; I will not trouble your 
Lordship with the full details of that. It gives the date of the birth as the 
24th April, 1906, the place of the birth as 1377 Herkimer Street, and the 
father’s birthplace as Ireland. On the 21st December, 1944, there is a 
Volkssturm card, and the statement is that the prisoner was bom in New 
York on the 24th April, 1906. In the German Work Book, which was 
issured on the 4th of October, 1939, the date of birth is given as the 24th 
April, 1906, the birthplace as Galway, the district as Ireland and the 
nationality as Great Britain. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What was the date when that was issued ? 

Mr. Slade : That one was issued on the 4th October, 1939. That is the German 
Work Book. My Lord, in the additional evidence the first one is the letter 
of the 9th August, 1922, the one produced by Miss Isaac this morning, in 
which he says, “I was born in America but of British parents.” In the 
contract of enrolment, the statement made by the prisoner was that the 
place of birth was New York and the date the 24th April, 1906. Of course, 
the fact that they are contradictory, I respectfully agree, does not mean 
that at this stage of the case there would not be evidence either way, if a 
man can affect his status or give evidence of his status by making admissions ; 
and I base my submission on counts 1 and 2 purely upon the fact that 
admissions by a man or a declaration by a man, no matter how often 
repeated, is no evidence at all, not even prima facie evidence, of status. 

If your Lordship is against me on that submission, then I feel it would be 
perhaps wrong now to go on to my submission upon the third count, which 
is purely a question of law, if it means arguing it twice; and I would 
like your Lordship to be good enough to indicate which would be the better 
stage to go into this pure question of law. If, of course, I am right in my 
submission in regard to counts 1 and 2, those counts, however, become 
a pure question of law, because, assuming everything against myself for 
the purpose of my submission, I should still be submitting to your Lordship 
that as a matter of law Mr. Joyce could not owe any allegiance to His 
Majesty the King whether he obtained one or fifty passports by false 
pretences, assuming that they were obtained by false pretences. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Count 3, of course, although it is relied upon, put in 
the alternative way — if there is some evidence that the prisoner was a 
British subject, that would support count 3 as well. 

Mr. Slade : Certainly, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : That being so, I think it would be convenient at this 
stage to deal with that aspect of the matter, and then in certain events 
you might be able to renew your submission on the alternative basis of 
count 3. 

Mr. Slade : I am obliged to your Lordship, and if that is equally convenient 
to the court I would prefer it for this reason. My learned friend the 
Attorney-General has been good enough to promise me a list of his 
cases. I have given him a list of mine and I have sent it up to the court 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


61 


so that your Lordship might have the volumes before you. I do not know 
the books at the moment on which my learned friend is going to rely. 
I am not making the slightest complaint, I have had the greatest possible 
assistance, but in fact they have not reached me. I shall have time to look 
at them and that will give me an opportunity of replying to my friend’s 
legal argument afterwards. 

My Lord, the first question that I desire to argue involves the question 
of what is a British subject. Now, my Lord, unfortunately that involves 
a consideration of not merely who is a British subject now in 1945, but 
what the law was in 1906. For the purpose of my argument the only 
fact I want your Lordship to assume, if indeed it requires any assumption, 
is that the birth certificate which has been put in by the prosecution accurately 
states the date of the prisoner’s birth as the 24th April, 1906. My Lord, 
the law, your Lordship will see, involves an investigation of three things : 
(1) where was the prisoner born? (2) what was his father’s nationality 
at the time of his birth ? and (3) what was the father’s nationality 
at such time as the prisoner came of age, which would be on the 23rd 
April, 1927 ? My Lord, to show your Lordship that the law which obtains 
now is not necessarily the law which obtained in 1906 

Mr. Justice Tucker: I am not quite clear what you are doing, Mr. Slade. 
Are you amplifying your submission that there is no evidence on the basis 
of admissions made by the prisoner ? 

Mr. Slade : Yes, my Lord. I understood your Lordship to say that I should 
deal with the question of a British subject. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes, as to whether there is evidence at the present stage 
at all which would be sufficient to leave to the jury as some evidence of 
British nationality. 

Mr. Slade : In other words, may I put it in this way ? These are declarations 
or admissions made by the prisoner. I am now submitting to your Lordship 
that they are questions of mixed fact and law. In order to have the slightest 
weight one would have to assume that Mr. Joyce, at the time the admissions 
were made, had some knowledge of what the law was at that time ; otherwise, 
of course, his admissions would not be worth the paper on which they 
were written. For example, let us take a fantastic case. Supposing that 
he was born in this country, and it is assumed that because he was born 
in this country — that would be a very natural assumption — he was a British 
subject. Of course, there are cases where a person who is bom in this 
country may have been a British subject at one time, assuming he was an 
infant, and ceased to be a British subject when his father became naturalised 
[elsewhere]. But I am hoping that I can assist your Lordship in coming 
to a conclusion on the question of being a British subject, because it is 
difficult to explain my submission to your Lordship without knowing 
what the law was. It is now laid down by the British Nationality and 
Status of Aliens Act, 1914, which has been amended by various subsequent 
Acts, but not in any form material to this case. The Act, as amended by 
the Acts of 1918 and 1922, is set out in Halsbury's Statutes ,* volume 1, 
page 185. 

I do not think that the statute I am reading from now has been amended 
so as to cover the slight variations of 1918 and 1922. I do not think there 
is any difference on the point, but if your Lordship would look at Section 
1 (3) your Lordship will see these words : “ Nothing in this section shall , 
except as otherwise expressly provided, effect the status of any person born 
before the commencement of this Act.” I think the words “except as other- 
wise expressly provided” must refer back to the words which your Lordship 

'The Complete Statutes of England, Classified and Annotated (Butterworth, 1929). 



62 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


will sec immediately following the small letter (c) : “ Provided that the child 
of a British subject , whether that child was bom before or after the passing 
of this Act” etc. That is the only passage in Section 1 where I can see 
that anything making the Act retrospective appears expressly. As your 
Lordship sees, if this Act did apply, Section 1 (1) reads in this way: “ The 
following persons shall be deemed to be natural-born British subjects , namely : 

(a) Any person born within His Majesty's dominions and allegiance , and 

(b) Any person born of His Majesty's dominions whose father was a British 
subject at the time of that person's birth , and who fulfils any of the following 
conditions . . .” 

Now, if your Lordship would be good enough to look at Section 12 (1) ; 
that says: “ Where a person being a British subject ceases to be a British 
subject , whether by declaration of alienage of otherwise ” which of course 
would include naturalisation, “ every child of that person , being a minor , 
shall thereupon cease to be a British subject , unless such child , on that person 
ceasing to be a British subject , does not become by the law of any other 
country naturalised in that country ,” and the proviso is immaterial. There 
is nothing to show that Section 12 does not come into operation as regards 
everyone the moment the Act came into operation, which was on the 1st 
of January, 1915. There is no corresponding proviso to subsection 
3 of Section 1, but I will tell your Lordship what the corresponding law 
was before this Act came into force with regard to that. 

Lastly, Section 13, and this is very important, says: “A British subject 
who , when in any foreign state and not under disability , by obtaining 
a certificate of naturalisation or by any other voluntary and formal act, 
becomes naturalised therein , shall thenceforth be deemed to have ceased to 
be a British subject." Disability is defined in Section 27 as meaning the 
status of being a married woman or a minor, lunatic or idiot. Upon the 
assumption that none of those sections applies to the case of William 
Joyce, because he was born before the 1st January, 1915, the law dealing 
with this point is very conveniently set out in the first edition of Halsbury's 
Laws of England which happens to have been published in 1907. Has 
your Lordship a copy of the first edition of Halsbury ? 1 

Mr. Justice Tucker: No, you read it and I will follow it. I don’t want 
to stop you, Mr. Slade, but I am finding it a little difficult to follow because 
at the present moment there is no evidence as to when this man was born. 

Mr. Slade : The birth certificate, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : That is no evidence yet. It is a birth certificate. It 
only becomes evidence when there is some evidence of the identity of the 
person referred to in the certificate with the person described in the 
certificate. At the present moment I merely know that there is a document 
in existence which purports to show that somebody was bora on a certain 
day. 

Mr. Slade : My Lord, in my respectful submission that has been put in as having 
been acknowledged by William Joyce to be his property and is quite clearly 
referring to his own birth certificate. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Very well. 

Mr. Slade: My Lord, if it did not refer to that it would have been wholly 
irrelevant. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : I have expressed my view as to the legal effect of this 
document. It was put in without objection as part of the general material 
in the case as a document which he acknowledged as being in his possession 
together with a number of other documents. At the present moment in 
my view there is no evidence to prove when this man was bora— at the present 

'Halsbury's Laws qf England (Butterworth) first edition 1907, second edition 1931. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


63 


stage. I quite follow your submission with regard to whether or not a 
man can make an admission as to his status. That seems to be quite 
another matter. I find it a little difficult to follow how at the present 
stage an investigation as to the precise law of nationality in 1906 or at 
any other date is material. 

Mr. Slade: Of course, I quite understand your Lordship finding it difficult, 
because I am afraid the point which your Lordship has just put to me, 
and which of course I accept, has never occurred to me, namely, that it 
was going to be suggested that by putting in that birth certificate which was 
acknowledged — the prosecution put it in — and I think it is a document 
moreover which purports to be certified as being a true copy. Of course, 
I can quite see your Lordship’s point. Your Lordship means it merely 
purports to be a birth certificate of a person of the name of William Joyce. 
May I respectfully say this ? Accepting what your Lordship says, I find 
it difficult at the moment to see how that can be in a sense otherwise than 
in my favour, because, if there is no evidence at all of where this man was 
bom — none of any description whatsoever except his own statements which 
are contradictory — then can I not, for the purposes of my submission that 
it cannot affect his status, argue firstly that, to say that he was a British 
subject, the admission would have to go to the extent of saying that he was 
either born within the King’s allegiance or was born outside the King’s 
allegiance of a British father at the time of his birth ? And, as there is 
no evidence at all that he was bom, in the absence of this birth certificate, 
inside His Majesty’s allegiance, except of course the man’s own statements 
which I am submitting are not evidence at all 

Mr. Justice Tucker: You are saying there must be an admission at any rate 
that he was what ? 

Mr. Slade: I say that, in order to raise a prima facie case that Joyce was a 
British subject, the prosecution must show a prima facie case that he was 
bom in this country or a prima facie case that his father was a British subject 
at the time of his birth. My learned friend Mr. Curtis-Bennett has been 
good enough to remind me that the Statement of William Joyce has been 
put in by the Prosecution, and the first line of that says, “I was bom in 
Brooklyn, U.S.A., on the 24th April, 1906.” My Lord, I should have 
respectfully submitted to your Lordship that that statement, having been 
put in, is some evidence that he was bom on that date, and I am also 
reminded that there is another document which refers to the maiden sur- 
name of his mother, Miss Brooke, which also appears upon the birth 
certificate as the mother’s name before marriage, Gertrude Emily Brooke. 
But, taking that against myself 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Your submission really covers all that, does it not ? 

Mr. Slade : Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: You say a man cannot admit what his status is and that 
any admission he makes must be in the nature of hearsay; and, with 
regard to your submission that the Prosecution must prove either that 
the man was bom in Britain or that his father was a British subject at 
the time of his birth, if your submission is correct, you would say that he 
could not give first-hand evidence of either, because he would not know 
anything about it at the time he was bora ? 

Mr. Slade : Precisely. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : That seems to me to cover everything, if it is right. 

Mr. Slade: Your Lordship, of course, is quite right. I am afraid I was only 
referring to the authorities — of course, your Lordship would know them 
— because, without referring to the authorities, it does appear that those 
are the two requirements of British nationality or one of them is. I was 
taking the law as it is now and the law, slightly different as it was before 



64 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

the 1914 Act was passed, for the purpose of showing that by either law a 
pre-requisite of British nationality, assuming that the prisoner was bom 
out of this country or out of His Majesty’s dominions, was that the father 
should be at the time of his birth a British subject. Therefore I would not 
argue — it is perfectly true that the prisoner has stated so — there are 
documents like the birth certificate. Putting it against myself for the 
moment, the birth certificate gives the father’s birthplace as Ireland. If 
the son can only speak to his own birthplace by hearsay, a fortiori he can 
only speak to his father’s birthplace by hearsay. 

My concluding remarks on my submission are these: Whenever one 
wants to prove any form of status — if you want to prove that a man is 
an undischarged bankrupt, if it is a bankruptcy offence, it is not sufficient 
to take a statement by the man that he was made bankrupt and that he 
is still undischarged; he has to produce the record from the Bankruptcy 
Court to show when the Receiving Order and the Adjudicating Order were 
made. There can be no stronger evidence against a man on a question 
of pure fact than his own admission, and in my respectful submission, 
where it is not a question of fact but a question of applying the correct 
law to the facts in a criminal case, it is not even prima facie evidence. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes, Mr. Attorney ? 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, in my submission status is a question of 
law dependent upon certain facts. The facts are birth in a particular locality 
or birth of parents of a particular nationality. Both those matters, birth 
and parentage, are matters of fact provable, in my submission, in any 
way appropriate to the proof of any other matter of fact. Not every birth 
can be proved by the production of a birth certificate or by the evidence 
of somebody who happened to be present at the time ; but, if my learned 
friend's submission were right, it would mean that no person could ever 
give evidence of his own nationality. I do not think it is necessary for 
me to go so far as to say that all, but certainly most, matters of fact are 
capable of proof either by affirmative evidence or by admission, and an 
admission to be binding on the person who makes it does not have to relate 
to something which is within that person’s personal knowledge : it is equally 
a binding admission if it is based upon information which that person has 
been given and which information he is content to accept. My Lord, so 
far as they go every document in this case — whatever their evidential value 
may be — with the exception of the prisoner’s own Statement, tends to show 
facts in relation to birth and parentage which, if uncontradicted, would 
lead to a conclusion of British nationality. 

My Lord, if the matter were left at this stage as a question of fact, the 
jury might well say or a tribunal of fact might well say, in assessing the 
relative importance which they would attach to the prisoner’s Statement 
made after he had been apprehended and at a time when he had been 
warned that he might be prosecuted, that this was not a document to which 
they were prepared to attach so much weight as to the letter to the officer 
commanding the O.T.C. or to the three declarations made in the application 
for a British passport or to the letter sent to the O.T.C. authorities by the 
prisoner’s father. My Lord, that letter — not one which it would have 
been open to me to put in as evidence in this case, and to which I was careful 
not to refer — has been, if 1 may say so, very properly put in by my learned 
friend and now, in my submission, it becomes an important piece of evidence 
in this case. True, my learned friend made some comment on it to the 
witness. He suggested it was an equivocal answer to the question which 
had been put in the letter from the O.T.C. authorities, “Were you ever 
naturalised?” But the witness said — and a tribunal of fact might regard 
the answer as a very good one — that he thought the letter was a complete 



FeWoir- Countrymen! 

We of the British Free Corps are fighting for YOU! 

We are fighting with the best of Europe's youth to preserve our 
European civilisation and our common cultural heritage from the 
menace of Jewish Communism. 

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT* Europe includes England 
Should Soviet Russia ever overcome Geraaany and the other Eu- 
ropean countries fighting with her, nothing on this earth would save 
the Continent from Communism, and our own country would 
inevitably sooner or later succumb 

We are British. We love England and all it stands for. Most of 
os have fought on the battlefield^ of Franca* of Lybis, Greece, or 
Italy, and many off our best comrades in arms are lying there — 
sacrificed in this war off Jewish revenge. We felt then we were 
being lied to and betrayed. Now we know it for certain. 

This conflict between England and Germany is racial SUICIOE 
We must UNITE and take up arms against the common enemy 
We ask you to join with us in our struggle. We ask you to come 
mto our ranks and fight shoulder to shoulder with us for Europe 
and for England. 


Published by the British Free Corps 


"BRITISH FREE 


CORPS 


PAMPHLET 




JOHN AMHRY ARRESTED IN MILAN 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 65 

answer to the question, inasmuch as it stated that neither of them were 
American citizens and that they were British. 

My Lord, even if one looked at the birth certificate for what it is worth, 
it would in my submission be evidence, if it is evidence of anything, of 
British nationality. True, it records the birth in America, but it records 
the father’s birthplace as being Ireland. I ask your Lordship to say that, 
if the matter rests here, the documents are rea lly all one way ; that my learned 
friend cannot reprobate the seven documents which go to suggest British 
nationality and probate the one document, the prisoner’s Statement, 
which appears to suggest American nationality. But, taking the document 
as a whole and bearing in mind the context of passport application, the 
Statement and all the rest of the documents, the evidence as to the fact 
would lead to a conclusion of British nationality. I am not at all sure that 
my learned friend put the onus right in this matter. 

In the first volume of East's Pleas of the Crown there is a passage at 
page 51 referring to a case of Aeneas Macdonald, which was a treason 
case tried in 1747, and the passage I would rely on is this. Lord Chief 
Justice Lee, in directing the juiy, told them that as to the question whether 
or not the prisoner was a native of Great Britain the presumption in all 
such cases was against the prisoner, and that where he put his defence on 
that issue the proof of his birth out of the King’s dominions lay upon him. 
The matter is dealt with in Roscoe's Criminal Evidence — I have the 15th 
edition — at page 1099. There under the heading “Proof of being a subject,” 
it is said: “ Apparently slight prima facie evidence is sufficient if uncontra- 
dicted. In 1571 Story admitted the allegation that he was horn English 
hut objected that for seven years he had been in the service of the King of 
Spain , but the court refused to accept the plea. 7/ he spoke English .’ said 
Lord Chief Justice Holt in Vaughan, ‘ that is some evidence he is an Englishman 
( i.e . a subject,)' where there was evidence that defendant had admitted that he 
was an Irishman . The question is clearly for the jury." Then, my Lord, 
it goes on to discuss that case, but in my submission the authorities here 
are all one way. If indeed there is any onus on the Crown at all, it is one 
which is lightly discharged ; and here, on the evidence from the documents 
form the declaration, from the father’s own letter showing that his attention 
was specifically directed to that point, my submission is that the tribunal 
must find the fact as to birth and parentage which would enable your 
Lordship to rule that this man was a British subject if those facts remained 
uncontradicted. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Do you wish to add anything on this point, Mr. Slade ? 

Mr. Slade : No, my Lord. I have looked up the case of Aeneas Macdonald 
which is also reported in Foster's Crown Cases. That was the case where 
Lord Chief Justice Lee said in substance that in cases of treason everything 
was assumed against the prisoner and Sir Michael Foster made a similar 
statement, your Lordship will remember, with regard to the onus of proof 
in cases of murder — which was disapproved by the House of Lords in 
Woolmington's case. 1 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What is the passage in Foster to which you are referring ? 

Mr. Slade : I was saying there was a passage in the case of Aeneas Macdonald 
which is reported in Foster's Crown Cases. Of course, it was not a State 
trial. 

The Attorney-General : It is reported in 1 8 State Trials. 

Mr. Slade : The case is also reported in Foster's Crown Cases. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the case called ? 

1 Woolmingion v. Director of Public Prosecutions , 1935, vol. 25, Court of Criminal Appeal 

reports. 

£ 



66 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Mr. Slade: “Aeneas Macdonald.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : It is at page 59 of Foster's Crown Cases. 

Mr. Slade: I am obliged to your Lordship. The passage is on page 59: 
“The counsel for the prisoner insisted that he was born in the dominions 
of the French King and on this point they put his defence. But apprehending 
that the weight of the evidence might be against them , as indeed it was , with 
regard to the place of the prisoner's birth , they endeavoured to captivate 
the jury and the bystanders by representing the great hardship of a prosecution 
of this kind ” that is not the passage. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : It is at the bottom of page 60 in Foster's Crown Cases . 

Mr. Slade: I am obliged to your Lordship. “ Lord Chief Justice Lee , in his 
direction to the jury , told them that the overt acts laid in the indictment 
being fully proved and not denied by the prisoner , or rather admitted by 
his defence , the only fact they had to try was whether he was a native of 
Great Britain : if so, he must be found guilty. And as to that point he said 
the presumption in all cases of this kind is against the prisoner, and the proof 
of his birth out of the King's dominions , where the prisoner putteth his defence 
on that issue , lieth upon him. But whether the evidence that had been given 
in the present case , which he summed up very minutely , did or did not amount 
to such proof, he left to their consideration .” That was, of course, evidence 
put forward by the prisoner for the purpose of rebutting the onus which the 
Chief Justice had put upon him. I gather from my friend’s reference to 
Roscoe , page 1099 — I do not know whether I am accurate, but he will 
correct me if I am wrong— that Aeneas Macdonald was the authority for 
that statement of the law. 

The Attorney-General : Aeneas Macdonald and the other case I mentioned 
of Vaughan. 

Mr. Slade : My Lord, in my respectful submission that is not the law as it 
stands to-day and anything of that kind must be taken to have been over- 
ruled by the House of Lords in Woolmington's case. Indeed, Foster 
himself was overruled in dealing with the onus of proof in murder cases. 
Your Lordship will remember Woolmington’s case, but perhaps I might 
refer to it quite shortly. It is reported in 1935 Appeal Cases. The head 
note is at page 462 : “In a trial for murder the Crown must prove death 
as the result of a voluntary act of the prisoner and malice of the prisoner. 
When evidence of death and malice has been given , the prisoner is entitled 
to show by evidence or by examination of the circumstances adduced by the 
Crown that the act on his part which caused death was either unintentional 
or provoked. If the jury are either satisfied with his explanation or, upon 
a review of all the evidence , are left in reasonable doubt whether , even if 
his explanation be not accepted, the act was unintentional or provoked \ 
the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted. Statement of the law in Foster's 
Crown Law (1762), page 255, disapproved." And at page 480 there is the 
well-known passage from the speech of Lord Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, 
at the foot of the page : “If at any period of a trial it was permissible for the 
judge to rule tlmt the Prosecution had established its case and that the onus 
was shifted on the prisoner to prove that he was not guilty and that, unless 
he discharged that onus , the Prosecution was entitled to succeed, it would 
be enabling the judge in such a case to say that the jury must in law find the 
prisoner guilty and so make the judge decide the case and not the jury, which 
is not the common law. It would be an entirely different case from those 
exceptional instances of special verdicts where a judge asks the jury to find 
certain facts and directs them that on such facts the Prosecution is entitled 
to succeed. Indeed, a consideration of such special verdicts shows that it 
is not till the end of the evidence that a verdict can properly be found and that 
at the end of the evidence it is not for the prisoner to establish his innocence 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


67 


but for the Prosecution to establish his guilt . Just as there is evidence on 
behalf of the Prosecution , so there may be evidence on behalf of the prisoner 
which may cause a doubt as to his guilt. In either case he is entitled to the 
benefit of the doubt. But while the Prosecution must prove the guilt of the 
prisoner , there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence 
and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt ; he is not bound to 
satisfy the jury of his innocence . This is the real result of the perplexing 
case of Rex v. Abramovitch 1 which lays down the same proposition , although 
perhaps in somewhat involved language. Juries are always told that , if 
conviction there is to be , the Prosecution must prove the case beyond reason- 
able doubt. This statement cannot mean that, in order to be acquitted, the 
prisoner must ' satisfy ’ the jury . This is the law as laid down in the Court 
of Criminal Appeal in Rex v. Davies, the headnote of which correctly states 
that where intent is an ingredient of a crime, there is no onus on the defendant 
to prove that the act alleged was accidental. Throughout the web of the 
English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen , that it is the duty 
of the Prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already 
said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. 
If at the end of and on the whole of the case there is a reasonable doubt created 
by the evidence given by either the Prosecution or the prisoner , as to whether 
the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the Prosecution 
has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal .” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Slade, I do not want to stop you. I am very familiar 
with Woolmington' s case and I do not propose at the present stage to rule 
that the onus is upon you; but I am disposed, subject to what you say, 
to hold that at the present stage there is some evidence which, if un- 
contradicted, would entitle the jury to come to the conclusion that this man 
was a British subject. If and when any other evidence is before them, it 
may be that in balancing up the whole of the evidence the onus would be 
on the Prosecution to prove, where the issue has arisen, where there is any 
controversy about it, that the man was a British subject. 

Mr. Slade : If your Lordship pleases. I only read that — I knew your Lordship 
was familiar with the case — because the last sentence I propose to say on 
the subject is this. Assuming your Lordship is ruling against me, I would 
say— I am only saying it for the purpose of reinforcing my argument — 
supposing I were to say, “Very well, I will call no evidence/’ it would be for 
the jury to say whether the Prosecution could be said to have proved beyond 
all reasonable doubt that the man who from the time he was sixteen, 
assuming the date of birth as 1906 (and he was sixteen, when he wrote 
the letters in 1922) has made contradictory statements about a matter which 
he could have no personal knowledge of— has proved beyond all reasonable 
doubt either that his father was bom in Galway or that he was bora in 
Ireland. I accept your Lordship’s ruling without the slightest hesitation. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: I think, when a man signs an application for a passport 
and describes himself as a British citizen, it is impossible to say there is 
not some evidence in favour of the proposition that he is of British 
citizenship. 

Mr. Slade: If your Lordship pleases. I am proposing to open my case quite 
shortly. 

May it please your Lordship, members of the jury, you have heard 
his Lordship rule that the prisoner’s own statements that he was born 
in Great Britain, his claim to be a British subject, his declaration that he 
is a British subject, statements such as those contained in the birth 
certificate, that his father was bora in Galway, so long as they are un- 

•Vol. 7, Court of Criminal Appeal reports. 



68 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


contradicted, form some evidence that he is in law a British subject. I 
submitted — I thought it my duty to submit — that point that there was 
no evidence. In point of fact I am hoping to prove to you conclusively, 
or as conclusively as one can prove anything, that the prisoner has never 
been a British subject at any time throughout his life; and to do so by 
admissible evidence. My Lord will direct you that, whereas the onus lies 
upon the Prosecution to establish a fact beyond all reasonable doubt, 
when, as my Lord has held, the onus shifts to the Defence — Of course 
you will take all those statements of practice and of the law, whatever 
I say, subject to my Lord’s direction, he dealing solely with matters of law. 

The only onus which lies upon me is of showing that the preponderance 
of probability is that William Joyce was never a British subject, even if 
any onus lies upon me at all; and that I have little doubt of my ability 
to do. 

I am afraid you have had to listen to some rather dull quotations from 
law books when I was addressing my Lord on my submission. I am afraid 
I shall have to quote two more passages of the law to you. When I say 
the law I mean, as my learned friend the Attorney-General said, what in 
this case the Defence submits to be the law; whether it is in fact the law 
or not, as I say, my Lord will direct you. 

I cannot hope to follow, if I may say so without presumption, or to 
emulate the admirable opening speech which my learned friend the 
Attorney-General made to you, but I am hoping to emulate it at any rate 
in one respect. I am hoping to be quite as dispassionate as he. If 1 have 
any powers of oratory — which 1 do not claim for one moment — I certainly 
would not use them in this case. 1 have not got them, but if I had I certainly 
would not use them. 1 am not going to appeal to your sympathy. It 
would be quite useless for me to do so and quite wrong in any case for me 
to do so. As I say, I am going to endeavour to be as dispassionate as my 
friend for the Prosecution has been, and 1 only ask you to bear in mind 
that, while he frankly admits in his very, very fair opening speech that the 
onus lies upon the Prosecution to prove anything against the prisoner 
beyond all reasonable doubt, the burden of proof which rests upon me, 
when any burden of proof does rest upon me, is not of that kind, but is 
merely to satisfy you that the balance of probability is in support of the 
fact which the Defence alleges to be true. 

I said there were two small passages of law I shall have to trouble you 
with, and I have to trouble you with them because, if I do not trouble 
you with them, you will not know what the witnesses whom I am going to 
call are seeking to prove. Mr. Joyce’s case, as I have told you, is that 
he has never been a British subject at any time throughout his life. I shall 
show how it is not necessary for me to go as far as that, but for the moment 
I will. In order to prove that he has never been a British subject throughout 
his life you have got to know what the law says a British subject is. 1 have 
already cited various authorities to my Lord, when I was submitting to 
him, showing what the law said constituted a British subject now, that 
is to say, since the 1st January, 1915. I read a subsection of one of the 
sections which showed that that state of the law was said by the Act of 
Parliament not to affect the status of anyone who was bom before the 
1st January, 1915, and I am going to ask you to assume for one moment 
that the birth certificate which we have exhibited is accurate in saying that 
Joyce was bom on the 24th April, 1906. I will deal later with the place 
where he was bom and the place where the certificate says that his father 
was bom. Assuming that he was born in 1906, of course the 1914 Act 
was not passed until eight years later ; and we have to deal with the law as 
it stood in 1906. I am going to read one passage as to what I am suggesting 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


69 


the law is from a well-known book which was published in 1907, and 
therefore is up-to-date for the purpose of 1 906 ; and I am then going to read 
to you two sections, and two sections only, of an Act which was then in 
force, called the Naturalisation Act of 1 870. The passage I desire to read 
to you is from Volume 1 of the 1st edition of Halsbury’s well-known 
Laws of England , pages 302 and 303, and the paragraph is No. 662: “ An 
alien is at common law a subject of a foreign state who has not been born 
within the allegiance of the Crown . The status of a person , as to whether 
he is an alien or not , is determined by the law of this country. Persons 
born within the allegiance of the Crown include (1) everyone who is born 
within the dominions of the Crown , whatever may be the nationality of either 
or both of his parents " 

Now may I pause there for a minute ? A child bom in England of a 
Chinese father and a Portuguese mother, who I presume would be Chinese 
by marriage but who was Portuguese before marriage — a child born in 
London of a Chinese father and a Portuguese mother is British. Bear 
that in mind. Prima facie anyone bom within the King’s dominions, that 
is to say, Canada, England or where you like, is British. I will pass over (2) 
which merely refers to children of His Majesty the King and of ambassadors 
— we are not troubled with that. “(3)” — and I want you to listen to these 
words — “Any person whose father or paternal grandfather was born within 
the dominions of the Crown , although he himself was born abroad " — now 
these are the vital words — “ provided that at the time of his birth his father 
had not ceased to have the rights of a British subject otherwise than by 
death." 

Now I will summarise that and you will follow it quite clearly. Leaving 
out children of His Majesty and the children of His Majesty’s ambassadors 
abroad, in 1906 you could become a British subject in one of two ways, 
either by being born in England — when I say England I include all His 
Majesty’s dominions; I don’t want to keep repeating myself; I will take 
England as the main example of His Majesty’s dominions — either by being 
born in England or else by being born abroad, provided that your father 
was at the time of your birth a British subject, that is to say, he had not 
ceased to have the rights of a British subject (except of course by dying). 
You then say : ‘Well, how does a person cease to have the rights of a British 
subject ? Why not. Once a British subject always a British subject ?’ The 
answer is that until the year 1870 that was the law: once a British subject 
always a British subject. There was no manner of means before the year 
1870 whereby any British subject could ever divest himself of his allegiance. 
In 1870 the Naturalisation Act was passed and I must read to you two 
sections. The first section I want to read to you is Section 6 : “ Any British 
subject who has at any time before or may at any time after the passing of 
this Act when in any foreign state and not under disability voluntarily become 
naturalised in such state shall , from and after the time of his so having 
become naturalised in such foreign state , be deemed to have ceased to be a 
British subject and be regarded as an alien." There is a long proviso which 
has nothing whatever to do with this case and so I will not trouble you with 
it. I want you to follow that if you will, that any British subject who either 
before or after the passing of this Act, 1870, has become voluntarily 
naturalised in a foreign state, not being under a disability — you need not 
trouble about that; it refers to idiots, lunatics and things of that kind — 
shall from and after the time of his having become so naturalised cease 
to be a British subject. One other section and one other section only. 
Section 10: “The following enactment shall be made with reference to the 
national status of women and children where the father being a British 
subject , or the mother being a British subject and a widow , becomes an 



70 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


alien , in pursuance of this Act every child of such father or mother who 
during infancy has become resident in the country where his father or mother 
is naturalised and has according to the laws of such country become natu- 
ralised therein shall be deemed to be a subject of the state of which the father 
or mother has become a subject and not a British subject .” 

Now summing both those passages of the law up and applying them 
to the facts of this case, it comes to this : Joyce will never have been a 
British subject if (1) he was not bom in England (using England as the 
dominions); (2) if his father, although born in Ireland, had ceased by 
naturalisation to be a British subject at the time that William Joyce, the 
prisoner, was bom; and (3) — this is a different point — if I were unable to 
prove that Joyce had never been a British subject, that is to say, assume 
against myself that I was only able to prove that his father had' become 
naturalised after the son’s birth, so that the father was still a British citizen, 
having been bom in Ireland, at the son's birth nevertheless if the father 
became an American citizen at any time while William Joyce was a minor, 
that is to say, until he reached the age of twenty-one years, under the 
sub-section which I have just read to you, the moment that Michael Joyce 
the father, assuming his name was Michael Joyce for the moment, became 
naturalised after 1906 and before 1927, when William Joyce became of 
age, then by virtue of Section 10, sub-section 3 of the Act that I have just 
read to you, every child of such father or mother who during infancy has 
become resident in a country where the father or mother is naturalised 
and has according to the law of that country become naturalised therein, 
shall be deemed to be a subject of the state of which the father or mother 
has become a subject and not a British subject. 

You will therefore see that there was justification for my statement 
some time ago that the fact that although in 999 cases out of a thousand a 
person who is bom in this country is a British subject — in fact he always 
is at birth — he might not be a British subject at any particular time thereafter 
for two reasons : (1) he may have become a naturalised American himself, 
for example, in which case he would cease to be a British subject under 
Section 6, or (2) if he was an infant and was born abroad, his father could 
change his nationality for him by the father's becoming naturalised while 
he was still an infant. 

I am sorry to have had to be rather technical, but you will now, I hope, 
be able to follow the reason for the evidence that I am going to call, and 
I will just outline the nature of the evidence. Firstly, 1 shall hope to be 
able to prove that the prisoner’s father was Michael Francis Joyce who 
frequently called himself simply Michael Joyce. I shall prove or endeavour 
to prove that his mother was Gertrude Emily Joyce, formerly Gertrude 
Emily Brooke. I shall hope to prove that Michael Joyce was born in 
Ireland at a place, Ballinrobe, which I think is in County Mayo in Ireland — 
I cannot tell you the exact year, but it was either 1868, 1869 or 1870; that 
the father went to America in 1888 or thereabouts; that while he was in 
America in 1888 he decided to become a naturalised American citizen; 
that on a date in July 1 892 he took the necessary preliminary steps according 
to American law, and I shall be calling evidence about American law, and, 
making what is called a declaration of intention to become an American 
citizen and of renouncing his allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, 
that on the 25th October, 1 894, he took the final steps and became, according 
to American law, a naturalised American citizen by swearing the necessary 
oath before the Judge in open court in the Court of the County of Hudson 
in the State of New Jersey on the 25th October, 1894; that he came over 
for a trip to this country in 1904 or 1905 and became engaged to a lady, 
Gertrude Emily Brooke, who lived at a place called Shaw, which I am told 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


?! 


is near Crompton and Preston, two towns in Lancashire; that they were 
to return to America to be married ; that the brother of Gertrude Emily 
Brooke, now unfortunately deceased, who was a solicitor, was asked to 
accompany them to make certain that the marriage was legal ; that Gertrude 
Emily Brooke was married to Michael Francis Joyce in the Church of 
All Saints at the comer of Madison Square and 129th Street, New York, 
on, I think, the 2nd May, 1905, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic 
Church, and I shall produce a copy of the marriage certificate ; that William 
Joyce was the first child of that union, bom eleven months later, namely, 
on the 24th April, 1906, at 1377 Herkimer Street, I think, in New York City, 
certainly in the State of New York. 

If I am right in my narrative so far, I hope you will have followed the 
legal consequences that ensue, if my statement of the law to you is correct. 
You have got Michael Francis Joyce, a British subject born in Ballinrobe 
in the County of Mayo, Eire or Ireland as it was then known, a British 
subject. You get Michael Francis Joyce becoming a naturalised American 
citizen on the 25th October, 1 894. Now will you bear in mind that on the 
25th October, 1894, Section 6 of the Naturalisation Act of 1870 would 
come into operation so far as the father Michael Joyce was concerned: 
"Any British subject who has at any time before or may at any time after 
the passing of this Act when in any foreign state" — in this case the United 
States of America — “and not under disability ” — no one suggests that 
Michael Joyce was under any disability — “ voluntarily become naturalised 
in such state which was what he did on the 25th October, 1894, “ shall % 
from and after the time of his so having become naturalised in such foreign 
state, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject” And therefore 
on the 25th October, 1894, Michael Joyce ceased to owe any allegiance 
whatever to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. If that is so, that means that 
when William Joyce was born eleven and a half years later on the 24th April, 
1906, and when he was bom in New York City he was bom out of His 
Majesty’s dominions and born of a father who was not a British subject 
at the time of his birth. In other words, William Joyce was born and 
always remained a subject of the United States of America, which he still is. 

Assume for one moment that, although I was able to prove that Michael 
Joyce is an American citizen, 1 was unable to prove — assume it against 
myself — that I was unable to prove that he was naturalised on the 25th 
October, 1894, to take an arbitrary date, and I am taking this date for a 
specific reason — assume I was only able to establish that Michael Joyce 
was an American citizen in the year 1917, that is to say, instead of being 
eleven years before his son was born, it was eleven years after his son was 
born. If I prove that William Joyce the prisoner was bom on the 24th April, 
1906, in 1917 he would be eleven. I shall prove that he resided with his 
parents for at least three years from his birtb until the year 1909 when 
they left for Ireland. What would happen then ? We should then go 
from Section 6 of the Act of 1870 to Section 10, sub-section 3 of the Act 
of 1870 : “ Where the father being a British subject ” — I am assuming against 
myself for the moment that he was up to 1917 — “ becomes an alien in pur- 
suance of this Act ” — that is in pursuance of naturalisation under Section 6 — 
“ every child of such father who during infancy has become resident in the 
country where the father or mother is naturalised and has , according to the 
laws of such country , become naturalised therein shall be deemed to be a 
subject of the state of which the father or mother has become a subject 
and not a British subject .” So, 1 as told you, even if I fail to prove 
that Mr. Michael Joyce, William Joyce’s father, became naturalised as an 
American citizen before his son’s birth, it would be sufficient for William 
Joyce to cease to be a British subject if his father became a naturalised 



72 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


American subject at any time before the date on which he attained legally 
his twenty-first birthday, which was on the 23rd April, 1927: his birthday 
was the 24th April, 1906. 

Now let me give you an idea of the evidence by which I propose to 
prove the matters which I have outlined to you. 

There are one or two difficulties, and with the consent of my learned 
friend the Attorney-General, if he has no objection, I propose to read a 
letter which has passed between my solicitor and the Director of Public 
Prosecutions in due course, because if the chain of evidence which I am 
able to give can be challenged in cross-examination I may even yet be forced 
— I do not think it will happen — to ask my Lord to adjourn the trial to 
enable the evidence of William Joyce's uncle, John Joyce, to be given 
(he at the present moment is in the United States) and also one other 
witness whose name I will mention in a moment. The position is this. 
There is no means known to the criminal jurisdiction of this country whereby 
evidence can be taken as it can in civil cases in America and used in the 
form of a deposition at a criminal trial in this country. I know of none 
and I have searched every authority; consequently there is no manner 
of means whereby I can force Mr. John Joyce to come and give evidence 
in this Court. Had I got Mr. John Joyce here, he being, of course, a 
contemporary of his brother Michael Francis, my task would be easier, 
but I do not anticipate any adjournment will be necessary in the absence 
of Mr. John Joyce and one witness whose name I shall mention later on. 
We have done our best, and 1 anticipate I shall be able to establish the 
points 1 wish to make to you to your entire satisfaction. 

Captain Scarden seemed surprised when I suggested that he was able 
quite easily to identify the signature of William Joyce when he was sixteen 
with the signature of William Joyce when he was twenty-nine. I did not 
ask Captain Scarden those questions which he rather seemed to fear at 
the moment — witnesses arc so much on the defensive when you ask them 
questions — 1 did not ask him those questions because I was challenging 
his veracity. I was not in the slightest. 1 asked him those questions 
because that is precisely the task with which I am confronted myself, and 
1 thought that, if he had no difficulty in doing it, you would accept it all 
the more readily from my witnesses that they would have no more difficulty 
than he did. 

Let me tell you the obvious hiatus that I have got here. First of all, 
I am going to produce a sealed and certified copy, and I am going to 
put it in, of what I will call the United States naturalisation record. That 
has been sealed and certified so as to become evidence automatically in a 
court of law under Section 7 of the Evidence Act of 1851. That document 
when I put it in, of course, will merely prove that a Michael Joyce — I 
emphasise the words : you will remember what my Lord said to me, and of 
course said quite correctly: supposing 1 put in my own birth certificate 
and handed it to you now, you would look at the birth certificate and see 
that a G. O. Slade was born on a certain date in London, but it would 
not be the slightest evidence ; there may be fifty G. O. Slades, and if my 
name were G. O. Smith there might be hundreds of them ; it would simply 
be evidence that there was a G. O. Slade born on the date stated in the 
certificate. Unfortunately, of course, both Joyce’s parents are dead. I am 
unable to give you exact details, but I will prove their death. They both 
died quite recently. 1 think the mother died as recently as 1944 and the 
father in 1941 — 1 will give you the exact dates — and, as I say, I find myself 
confronted with this difficulty that, when I put in the sealed copy — I shall 
put in a sealed copy with a photostat copy (you all know what a photostat 
is) — which shows the actual signatures of Michael Joyce on the oath of 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


73 


naturalisation on the 25th October, 1894 — What therefore I have got to do, 
of course, is to show that that Michael Joyce who was naturalised as an 
American on the 25th October, 1894, was the Michael Joyce who married 
Gertrude Emily Brooke on the 2nd May, 1905, and subsequently became 
the father of the prisoner. I hope I make that clear. That is what I have 
got to do. 

Now I will tell you why I do it and why I asked that question of Captain 
Scarden. 1 am going to call two witnesses as to handwriting, one an expert 
and one the manager of the bank at which Michael Joyce kept his account 
for eleven years, and who was familiar with his handwriting on cheques; 
and they will tell you that the signatures on documents which I am able to 
prove conclusively were signed by Michael Joyce are the same as the two 
photostatic signatures on his naturalisation record of the 25th October, 
1 894. The difficulty is, as I say, that there is eleven years between the two 
closest documents that I have : the marriage you may remember I told you, 
took place on the 2nd May, 1905, and the naturalisation on the 25th October, 
1894, that is about eleven years. Unfortunately in America, unlike this 
country, no part of the entry in the marriage register at the church is either 
in the handwriting of the bride or the bridegroom, but fortunately they do 
have what they call a civil entry relating to the marriage in America, and 
the search of the civil entry of the marriage of that couple who were married 
on the 2nd May, 1905, has disclosed the fact that the whole of the left-hand 
side which contains the particulars of the bridegroom is in the handwriting 
of the bridegroom, Michael Francis Joyce, and the whole of the right- 
hand side which contains the particulars of the bride is in the handwriting 
of Gertrude Emily Brooke, who became Gertrude Emily Joyce. I have 
got plenty of others, but the earliest date I have for the purpose of com- 
paring the known signatures with the naturalisation record signature is the 
civil entry in the marriage certificate, known to be (and I shall prove to be) 
in the handwriting of the father of the prisoner, the 2nd May, 1905. 

In addition to that, the handwriting experts will have in front of them 
a tenancy agreement with the Royal Irish Constabulary dated 1910; they 
will have in addition to that a will — what we call a holograph will entirely 
in the handwriting of Michael Joyce and of course signed by him in 1907; 
they will have a cheque drawn by Michael Joyce in favour of the prisoner 
William Joyce dated the 26th April, 1923; they will have an L.C.C. 
Education form signed by Michael Joyce on the 20th November, 1935 ; and 
finally they will have a letter signed “Father,” and written entirely in Michael 
Joyce's handwriting, which was sent by the father to his son, that is to say, 
to the prisoner’s brother Fdward Quentin Joyce, in March 1940. I cannot 
get anything nearer than that because, as I told you, Mr. Michael Joyce 
the father died in 1941. I shall have no difficulty in proving that all those 
documents are in the handwriting of Michael Joyce and Edward Quentin 
Joyce. All those documents will be available to the one expert and the 
bank manager for comparing with the evidence of the two signatures 
where they appear upon what is called the petition of naturalisation and the 
oath sworn and subscribed in open Court by Michael Joyce who was 
naturalised in October 1 894. 

My friend Mr. Curtis-Bennett reminds me that we have got some more 
signatures now, if we want them, because we have the documents which 
were produced by Miss Isaac, you may remember, about the O.T.C., and 
I elicited from that witness in cross-examination that, having received 
information from William Joyce, she communicated with the father Michael 
Joyce and she actually produced the original of Michael Joyce’s reply, so 
we have the signature to that document which will serve as a further com- 
parison. So much for bridging the gap between 1894 and 1905, but of 



74 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


course I should not rely solely upon that. That is all I can get so far as 
the actual identification of the Michael Joyce with the Michael Joyce 
we are concerned with. 

So far as the question of whether Michael Joyce was a British subject 
or not is concerned, I can give you a good deal more evidence. I shall 
be calling Mr. Holland and, if his evidence should be challenged in cross- 
examination, I shall be calling his wife also, Mrs. Holland. I shall call 
Mr. and Mrs. Holland, or Mr. Holland alone as the case may be, to prove 
this, that Gertrude Emily Brooke was a schoolfriend of Mrs. Holland at 
Shaw in Lancashire, that both she [Mrs. Holland] and her husband re- 
member when Michael Joyce came over from America and became friendly 
with Gertrude Emily Brooke, the wife’s schoolfriend. They remember 
the two becoming engaged and they remember the two of them leaving 
for America to get married. This is the most helpful part of the Hollands’ 
evidence. It so happened that in 1906 Mr. and Mrs. Holland decided to 
emigrate themselves, and they reached New York State — it may be New 
Jersey, I don’t know — at any rate they will say that they lived at an address 
which was only eleven miles, curiously enough, from the address where the 
Joyces were then living as husband and wife ; that is to say, Mrs. Holland 
found herself living at a distance of only eleven miles from the address 
where her old schoolfriend lived at Herkimer Street and they became 
visitors to each other at alternate week-ends. Mr. Holland will say that 
when he reached New York the Joyces had a baby aged six or seven months, 
a baby named William, and they will say that they know that baby and they 
will identify that baby, because they kept in touch with the parents through- 
out, as being the prisoner William Joyce. Now that is quite disinterested 
and dispassionate evidence and, if that is true, you will see that, even though 
1 could not prove the date of the birth, if for any reason I fail to prove, 
if I am required to prove what purports to be the birth certificate — you 
will have the fact that William Joyce, in October I think it was, they can 
only say looked five or six or seven months old — they cannot bind them- 
selves down to the exact month. You will have the fact that in October 1 906, 
when the Hollands in America paid their first visit to their old friend 
Mrs. Joyce, formerly Miss Brooke, they had a baby William who was 
six or seven months old, and that he is that man. Not only that, but, 
as I say, they visited alternately at each other’s homes for some three years 
at week-ends until Mr. and Mrs. Joyce decided to return to Ireland. 

I thought passports were a comparatively recent persecution, but at 
any rate they were in use in 1909. I thought they came in more or less 
in the last war, but in 1909 they were in use in America because Mr. Holland 
will tell you that Mr. Michael Joyce had to get a passport to return from 
America to Ireland, and by the day that he left New York for the port of 
embarkation the passport had not arrived, and therefore Mr. Holland 
consented to wait for the arrival of the passport so as to be able to deliver 
it personally to Mr. Michael Joyce the moment it arrived. He did wait 
for the arrival of the passport, and it did arrive, and Mr. Holland did hand 
it personally to Mr. Michael Joyce and — this is the salient point — he will 
tell you that it was an American passport. 

The next evidence I shall call before you is this. I shall prove to you 
that during the last war, namely, in 1917— and this is why I take the year 
1917 as an illustration — both Mr. and Mrs. Joyce were forced to register as 
aliens in this country in Lancashire, and I have served a subpoena upon 
the representative of the Chief Constable of the County of Lancaster to 
produce the Register of Aliens for Shaw in Lancashire, or that portion of 
Lancashire round Shaw, purporting to show the registration of those two 
persons as aliens. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


75 


Now I suppose it is unlikely that any very technical objection will be 
taken to the admissibility of evidence in a case like this, and, if any objection 
is taken, it is a matter for my Lord to rule upon ; but, if necessary, Mr. and 
Mrs. Joyce both being dead, I shall submit that an admission of alienage 
by a deceased person is what we call a declaration against interest and a 
declaration by deceased persons which is against their own, as the law says, 
financial or proprietary interests is admitted upon the footing that a person 
is unlikely to make an untrue statement against his own interests. That 
is the footing upon which it is admitted, and also this document is a 
document which is kept in the custody of the police and never leaves the 
custody of the police, and I shall be able to prove to you by producing 
the register that in the year 1917 in the Register of Aliens there are two 
entries — one is numbered 10272 and the other 10273 — and they refer to the 
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Joyce who were formerly Mr. Michael Joyce and 
Miss Gertrude Emily Brooke, and this is what it says : “ Register of Aliens. 
Serial number and date of entry 10272, 28.4.1917. Surname: Joyce . 
Christian name : Michael. Nationality and birthplace : nat. American ” 
which I construe to mean ‘naturalised American.’ “ Birthplace : Galway , 
Ireland. Postal address : 31 Manchester Road, Shaw. Trade or occupation 
and name of employer , if any : nil. Date of birth ” — in this case it gives the 
6th December, 1 866. “ Householder , leaseholder , lodger or servant : Lodger . 
10273,” same date, “28.4.17. Joyce , Gertrude Emily. Nationality and 
birthplace : American by marriage .” Of course, the wife always takes the 
nationality of her husband. “ Crompton , Lancs.” As I told you, Shaw 
is near Crompton. “ Postal address : 31 Manchester Road , Shaw. Date 
of birth : 26th August , 1887.” And apparently somebody took the trouble 
to correct that, because 1887, which is the date of Mrs. Joyce’s birth, is 
altered to 1879 and initialled on the 20th July, 1917, and it says here, 
“ Particulars of family (< column 9) Wife, Gertrude E. Son, William, 24.4.06.” 
— the same date in those particulars, 1906 — “ Daughter, Frances, 29.4.12. 
Visiting Shaw to settle probate of will, then returning to Ireland.” I have 
limited myself at the moment to reading to you the entries which appear 
on the actual Register of Aliens themselves. 

I shall also get a witness from the Chief Constable’s office of the 
Lancashire County Council to produce certain correspondence which took 
place between them and the police in Galway, but I am not going to deal 
with that in my opening remarks until I am satisfied that the evidence 
of that correspondence is admissible in favour of my client. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Slade, at any moment that is convenient to you 
it will be convenient to adjourn. 

Mr. Slade: It will be quite convenient now, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Members of the jury, we will adjourn now. Since the 
year 1940 it is now possible for juries in cases of this kind to be allowed 
to separate and go to their homes ; before that you would have been kept 
all together in some convenient place. But make sure that, although you 
are now allowed to separate, you do not discuss this case with anybody 
or allow anybody to discuss it with you, please. 


SECOND DAY. — Tuesday, 18 th September, 1945. 

Mr Slade: May it please your Lordship, members of the jury, when we 
adjourned yesterday I had reached the stage where I was about to read 
to you what I called the naturalisation record. May I have the sealed 
copy ? I formally put m this certified copy of the naturalisation record. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What is it called, Mr. Slade ? 



76 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Mr. Slade: I have called it the naturalisation record. It consists of two 
documents, one called the Declaration of Intention, that was on the 
22nd July, 1892, and the other called the Petition, which is dated the 
25th October, 1894; and the rest of the documents which your Lordship 
lias are merely necessary variations of it following judicial proceedings. 

Mr. Justice Tuckjer: What is the date of the document itself, not of the 
certification of it ? 

Mr. Slade: The first document is headed: “ State of New Jersey . Be it 
remembered that on the 22nd day of July , 1892” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes. 

Mr. Slade: And the second document is the Petition of Michael Joyce. Your 
Lordship will see that the third time the name Michael Joyce appears it 
says: “Sworn in Open Court this 25 th day of October , 1894.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes. 

Mr. Slade: I have one spare photostat; perhaps your Lordship will allow 
the jury to have one copy. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: When it is convenient, Mr. Slade. 

Mr. Slade : Members of the jury, I have not sufficient copies to provide you 
all with photostat copies of these documents, but I am going to tell you 
quite shortly what they are. I mentioned yesterday that in the year 1894— 
I have no knowledge of the law of America, but I have evidence to prove 
it— as the law then stood the pre-requisites for American naturalisation 
were that the applicant should have resided in the United States for a 
period of five years ; that he should make a Declaration of Intention to 
apply for naturalisation two years before he actually obtained naturalisation, 
and, I think — I speak subject to correction as to American law — thirdly, 
that he should have resided in the State where he applied for naturalisation 
for a period of not less than one year. 

There is one other very important point I have to mention to you. 
Both these documents I am going to read out are printed forms with the 
appropriate particulars filled in in ink. The Declaration of Intention, 
although it bears tiie signature ‘‘Michael Joyce,” is not signed in the hand- 
writing of Michael Joyce, because apparently the practice in those days 
was for the Intention to be drawn by the Clerk of the Court, and a glimpse 
at this document, the Declaration of Intention, shows that the whole of the 
inked particulars that are filled in are in the same handwriting — not only 
the signatures but the body of the document. I only mention that because 
no one here is suggesting that what purport to be the signatures of Michael 
Joyce on the Declaration of Intention are in fact the signatures of Michael 
Joyce. But, when one comes to the Petition, the name “Michael Joyce” 
appears four times. It starts with “The Petition of Michael Joyce”; that 
is merely written in, and is not in Michael Joyce’s handwriting. The 
second time it says : “He therefore prays he may be admitted to become a 
citizen of the United States.” That is the second time where the name 
appears, and that is, according to the case for the Defence, in the signature 
of Michael Joyce. The third occasion where it appears is : “I, Michael 
Joyce, the above-named petitioner”; that again is not the signature of 
Michael Joyce. And the fourth time where it appears it says, “Sworn in 
Open Court this 25th day of October, 1894, Michael Joyce,” with the 
signature of the Judge immediately underneath it; that is in the hand- 
writing of Michael Joyce. 

Recapitulating therefore, of the four times in which the name Michael 
Joyce appears in the Petition, sometimes referred to as the Application, 
the second and fourth times are in the signatures of the Michael Joyce 
who we seek to prove was the father of the prisoner. 

I will read the documents through. The first is the Declaration of 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


77 


Intention : — ■“ State of New Jersey. Be it remembered that on the 22nd day 
of July in the year of our Lord 1892 before me , Dennis McLaughlin, Clerk 
of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County of Hudson ( the said 
Court being a Court of Record having Common Law Jurisdiction and a 
Clerk and Seal) personally appeared Michael Joyce , an alien , a native of 
Ireland , aged about 25 years who , being duly sworn according to law on 
his oath , doth declare and say that he arrived in the United States on or about 
the 4th day of May in the year of our Lord 1888” — that was the year I 
told you of yesterday — “ and that it is his bona fide intention to become 
a Citizen of the United States and to renounce forever all allegiance and 
fidelity to any and every foreign prince , potentate , state and sovereignty 
whatever , and particularly to the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland , whose subject he has heretofore been. Subscribed and 
Sworn to before me this day and year written above. Dennis McLaughlin , 
Clerk. ( Signed ) Michael Joyce ” — it is not in fact signed by Michael Joyce — 
“ State of New Jersey , Hudson County. I, Dennis McLaughlin , Clerk of the 
Court of Common Pleas in and for the County of Hudson aforesaid , do 
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Declaration of Intention 
to become a Citizen of the United States of America , of Michael Joyce 
as the same is filed of record in my office. In testimony whereof I have 
hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the Seal of the said Court in the 
County aforesaid , this 22nd day of July A.D. 1892. Dennis McLaughlin , 
Clerk .” 

Then the vital document is the Petition. 1 am sorry that the photostat 
copy on the face of it is not too clear, it reads: “To the Judges of the 
Court of Common Pleas in and for the County of Hudson , State of New 
Jersey . The Petition of Michael Joyce, a native of Ireland, respectfully 
showeth : That your petitioner arrived in the United States of America in the 
year 1888 and that in pursuance of an act of Congress , entitled ‘ An Act to 
establish a uniform rule of Naturalisation and to repeal the Acts heretofore 
passed on that subject ,’ made a declaration of his intention to become a 
Citizen , conformably to the said Act, before this Court , a certificate whereof 
is hereunto annexed ; that he has resided within the limits and under the 
jurisdiction of the United States for five years , and for one year at least 
within the State of New Jersey ; that he has never borne an hereditary title 
or been of any orders of nobility in the kingdom whence he came, or elsewhere. 
He therefore prays he may be admitted to become a citizen of the United 
States. Michael Joyce.” That, as I have said, is in the handwriting of 
Michael^ Joyce. “I, Michael Joyce ” — not in the handwriting of Michael 
Joyce — “ the above-named petitioner , do, on my solemn oath , declare that 
the contents of my Petition are true ; that I will support the Constitution of 
the United States ; that I will renounce and relinquish any title or order 
of nobility to which I am or hereafter may be entitled ; and that I do abso- 
lutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any 
Foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever, and particularly 
to the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland . Sworn in 
Open Court this 25 th day of October , 1894. Michael Joyce.” That is 
the signature of Michael Joyce. 

Then it bears the signature: “ John Kenny, Judge, State of New Jersey , 
Hudson County. John Duane, a citizen of the United States, being duly 
sworn according to law, says that he is well acquainted with the above- 
named Petitioner, and that, to his knowledge and belief, he has resided 
within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for five years . 
and for one year at least within the State of New Jersey, arid that , during 
the same period he has behaved himself as a man of good moral character, 
attached to the principles and Constitution of the United States, and well 



78 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. John Duane . Sworn 
in Open Court this 25th day of October , 1894. John Kenny , Judge.” 

Members of the jury, you may remember that I told you yesterday that, 
if my evidence on these points should be challenged, it might be necessary 
for me to apply to his Lordship for an adjournment with a view to getting 
the evidence of John Joyce, the uncle of the prisoner, and I mentioned at 
the time there was one other witness whose evidence it would be necessary 
for me to obtain. I will tell you who that witness is, John Duane, the 
attesting witness or referee. He is dead, but his brother Joseph Duane 
is alive, and Joseph Duane is in America. If I bring him here — I cannot 
pretend to say what he would say — he might say his brother was known 
to be the friend of Michael Joyce who later married Gertrude Emily Brooke, 
but I say no more about it for the moment. That is Joseph Duane. I am 
calling at least one, and, if his evidence should be challenged, a second 
American lawyer, who will prove to you that the moment that oath was 
sworn in open court by Michael Joyce on the 25th October, 1894, without 
more he thereupon became, according to the American law as it stood in 
1894, a citizen of the United States of America. Why the renunciation 
of allegiance is expressed particularly with regard to Her Majesty Queen 
Victoria is because, if you are to become a subject by naturalisation and 
were previously a subject of Great Britain, the particular renunciation 
would be to the Queen of Great Britain. If you had been a subject of the 
King of Spain, the particular renunciation would have been to the King 
of Spain. 

There is not much more I want to trouble you with at this stage. I 
want to say a few words about the birth certificate. I do not suppose 
you have seen it yet, but you will have it later. You will remember that 
it says: “New York, November 2nd, 1917.” Of course, in 1917 the 
prisoner, assuming he was in fact bom on the 25th April, 1906, would be 
eleven and a half years old. As you know, in this country anyone can go to 
Somerset House at any time and obtain a certificate of their birth. This 
certificate was obtained on November 2nd, 1917, showing the birth on the 
24th October, 1906: “A Transcript from the Records of the Births reported 
to the Department of Health of The City of New York. Registered Number , 
1 1 596.” I merely emphasise this because, if this were a document produced 
by the German lie-factory, nothing would have been simpler than to make 
inquiries in New York as to whether a registered number 11596 in fact 
appeared as the registered number of the birth of William Joyce. “ Name 
of Child : William Joyce. Sex : Male. Colour : White. Date of Birth : 
April 24/06“ — I want you particularly to notice this — “Place of Birth: 
1377 Herkimer Street . Father's Name : Michael Joyce. Father's residence : 
1377 Herkimer Street. Father's birthplace: Ireland. Father's Age: 
36 years." That would have made his birth in 1 870, would it not ? I told 
you it was 1868, 1869 or 1870. “ Father's occupation : Contractor. Mother's 
marriage name : Gertrude Emily Joyce. Mother's name before marriage : 
Gertrude Etnily Brooke. Mother's residence: 1377 Herkimer Street . 
Mother's birthplace : England. Mother's age : 26 years. Number of 
children born to this mother , including present birth : One. /, the under- 
signed, hereby certify that I attended professionally at the above birth and / 
am personally cognizant thereof and that all the facts stated in said certificate 
ana report of birth are true to the best of my knowledge , information and 
belief. Signature : Charles F. Yerden , Physician . Residence : 1276 

Herkimer Street. Date of Report : May 1th, 1906. A True Copy. S. J. 
Byrne, M.D. Assistant Registrar” 

I am calling Mr. Edwin Quentin Joyce, the prisoner’s brother, who 
will produce to you a copy of his parents’ marriage certificate. Just so 



tHE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


79 


that you may follow the chain of evidence, I will tell you what that says. 
It starts with a quotation from the Gospel according to St. Matthew. 
“All Saints Church , Madison Avenue and 129 th Street , New York . This 
is to certify that Michael F. Joyce and Gertrude E. Brooke were lawfully 
married at All Saints Church on the 2nd day of May , 1905, according to the 
Rite of the Roman Catholic Church , the officiating priest being the Rev . 
C. F. Crawley , with John J. Ferris and Mary Naughton as witnesses , as 
appears from the Matrimonial Register of this Church. (Signed). Rev. 
J. W. Power , Pastor , cjo Mr. B. Stanton, Sexton, list June, 1905." As I 
told you, it is not the practice in the churches, certainly not in the Roman 
Catholic churches in New York, for either the bride or the bridegroom 
to make any entry in the marriage register, as it is of course in this country ; 
and in order to assist you — and for this I am indebted to the Prosecution — 
they have been kind enough to supply me with a photostat record of the 
civil entries of that marriage, and I am going to put in a copy of that. 
It is not too easy, but I will try to get as clear a copy for your Lordship 
as I can. I am told that there is a sealed copy here which I call for, and 
perhaps I might hand the sealed copy to your Lordship. I formally put 
that in. 

Before your Lordship looks at it, my friend suggests that I have to call 
some witness to put it in. In my submission I have not to do so; I have 
been supplied with it by the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Slade, will you elaborate your story ? 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, I am taking no point about it, and I do 
not seek to put any kind of difficulty in my learned friend’s way, but I 
think it is right that some witness — any witness, I apprehend — could 
produce it in the witness-box and say he produced it, so that it appears 
on the shorthand note as being produced in the proper form. My learned 
friend is calling a number of witnesses, and he can well call one if he wishes 
to put it in. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Attorney, I think the position is that every document 
requires a witness to prove it properly, unless it is a document which proves 
itself; one or the other I don’t think there is any magic in calling a 
witness totally unconnected with the document simply to say as a matter 
of form, “I produce it.” 

The Attorney-General: My Lord, it has got to be produced from some 
custody, I think. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes, to make it an official document. 

The Attorney-General : Yes, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Then it proves itself. 

The Attorney-General : Some of the documents prove themselves, some are 
copies which are put in which have to be proved in the absence of the 
original. 

Mr, Justice Tucker: This document comes from your custody; can you 
suggest some witness who can be called ? 

The Attorney-General : I think it might preferably be the American lawyer 
to produce this document. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Slade, I think we had better wait for a moment. 

The Attorney-General : I hope your Lordship will not think I am objecting 
to Mr. Slade opening the whole of his case and putting in the document 
at this stage. But I respectfully suggest, in view of the form of words 
which my learned friend used, that it would be best to have a witness at 
some stage. 

Mr. Slade: Far from making the slightest complaint, I wish to say that the 
Prosecution have been of the utmost assistance to me. I don’t see how I 
should serve any useful purpose by calling a witness to produce documents 



80 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


who knows nothing about them. Might I do this, in order td meet my 
friend’s reasonable requirements ? I am calling an American lawyer who 
will, no doubt, be able to prove that the American law requires civil entries 
to be made of a marriage in New York State — or New Jersey State as the 
case may be — and ask him to produce the document in that way. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Perhaps we had better wait and see what the witnesses 
do say. 

Mr. Slade : Does your Lordship think I ought not to open it to the jury ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker: 1 think it is better that you should not. 

Mr. Slade : Then it will, of course, cause a hiatus in my remarks, but I will 
say no more about it. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: You have made the position very clear to the jury, 
Mr. Slade. It is merely a step in building up your submission that this 
man is an American citizen. 

Mr. Slade: If your Lordship pleases. Members of the jury, I shall have to 
defer giving you the information by which I hoped to connect quite definitely 
the birth certificate with the prisoner. You may remember that the position 
in regard to the birth certificate is this. The birth certificate was not 
found on the prisoner; it was produced to him by Captain Scarden on 
the 1st June, 1945, and he acknowledged it to be his property. You will 
bear in mind that it states that William Joyce is the son of Michael Joyce 
and Gertrude Emily Brooke, but there is one other document I am going 
to read to you because I am calling, as I intimated, the representative from 
the office of the Chief Constable of the County of Lancashire to produce 
the Aliens Register. I read that out to you yesterday. You may remember 
that that says this, referring of course to the year 1917: “ Particulars of 
Family : Gertrude — there is a separate registration for her — “Son, 

William , 24.4.06.” In other words, the date of birth precisely corresponds 
with the date of birth shown on the birth certificate, and the name of the 
wife and of her maiden surname exactly corresponds of course with the 
mother of William Joyce who married Michael Joyce. 

The only other matters I have to mention are these. 1 told you that 
both the father and the mother of the prisoner were dead. I will prove 
by evidence the dates when they died. The father, Michael Francis Joyce, 
died on the 19th February, 1941, and the mother died on the 15th September, 
1944. That, of course, is why 1 am unable to call either of them to prove 
that William Joyce was their son, and I am unable to call Michael Joyce 
himself to prove that he was the person who was naturalised in 1894. 

Two further observations only, and I will call my evidence. Firstly, 
I am not calling the prisoner, and I am not calling him as a witness because, 
as you have heard, in the submission which I made to my Lord, he cannot 
possibly gfte you any evidence of when or where he was born. Secondly, 
still less can he give you any evidence of when his father was naturalised. 

And my final word is with regard to what has been called count 3. 
You have probably followed the argument upon count 3, and I am not 
going to discuss with you questions of law or attempt to trouble you with 
them, but the argument for the Prosecution upon count 3 is this : You, 
William Joyce, applied for a British passport, stating that you were a 
British subject by birth. As a result of that application a British passport 
was in fact issued to you which lasted for five years. You applied for 
renewal of that passport, again stating that you were a British subject by 
birth, or that your status had not changed, and a renewal was given to you 
for the space of one year. At the expiration of that year you again applied 
for a renewal of the passport, stating the same as before, and in consequence 
of that application a second renewal was given to you, which I understand 
it is suggested expired on the 2nd July, 1940. I am not in a position to 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


81 


dispute that evidence and I do not intend to dispute what is incontravertible. 
Whether those facts bring upon the prisoner the duty of allegiance is, as I 
understand it, a pure question of law which his Lordship will decide. I 
therefore do not propose to trouble you with any arguments upon that 
point, or with any submissions upon that point. I will make them at the 
proper time to my Lord, and now with the assistance of my learned friends 
I will call my evidence before you. 


Frank Holland, Sworn. 

Examined by Mr. Curtis-Bennett. 

Q. Is your name Frank Holland ? A. I don’t hear very well. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Will you come and stand a little nearer ? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett: Is your name Frank Holland ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you live at Pear Tree Cottage, Hoath, Canterbury, Kent ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you a retired civil engineer ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Wer6 you born at a place called Shaw in Lancashire on the 31st March, 
1883 ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Is he hearing you or answering you, Mr. Curtis-Bennett ? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett : He is certainly answering me, my Lord ; I hope he is 
hearing me. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : He was born at Shaw in Lancashire when ? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett: On the 31st March, 1883. (To the witness) Did you 
know a lady whose name was Gertrude Emily Joyce ? A. I did. 

Q. What was her name before she married ? A. Gertrude Emily Brooke. 

Q. Gertrude Emily Brooke was her maiden name, was it ? Was she a school- 
friend of your wife ? A. Yes, she was. 

Q. You married your wife in September 1905, I think ? A. September 7th, 
1905. 

Q. What was Miss Brooke, as you first knew her, called by way of Christian 
name or nickname ? A. She was known as “Queenie.” 

Q. Do you know whom “Queenie” married ? A. Michael Joyce. 

Q. Do you know when she met Michael Joyce ? A. I am not certain on 
that point, but I believe it was in Ireland. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Did he know Michael Joyce personally? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett: It will come in a moment, my Lord. He has not yet 
stated. (To the witness) Do you know that Gertrude Emily Brooke went 
to the United States in 1905 ? A . Yes, sir. 

Q. You weren’t there when she got married, were you ? A. No. 

Q. Did you yourself emigrate to the United States in May 1906, with your 
wife ? A. Yes, I know that her brother Edgar went with her. 

Q. So she left Ireland with her brother to get married in 1905 ? A. Yes. 

Q . With her brother who was a solicitor ? A. Yes. 

Q . And you followed in May 1906 ? A. Yes. 

Q . Where did you live when you got to the United States ? A. Westerley, 
Rhode Island. 

Q. After that where did you live ? A. New York City. 

Q. About how soon after you got to the United States did you live in New 
York City ? A . Approximately six months. 

£?. Somewhere about November 1906, that would be ? A . Yes. 

Q. Were you in the employ of contractors for the Pennsylvania Railway 
Company ? A. Yes. 

Q. Was your address 1019 Boston Road, New York City ? A. Yes. 

Q. When you got to New York at about the end of 1906 did you see anything 
of Gertrude Emily Joyce, as she then was? A. It was the first visit 
we paid. 



82 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Mr. Justice Tucker: Ask him to repeat it a little louder. What did he say 
last? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett : He said, “I think it was about the first visit we paid.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What was ? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett: The visit to the Joyces. 

The Witness : Yes ; it was because they were the only people we knew in New 
York, and we went there naturally. 

Q . Can you remember where they were living ? A. They were in Brooklyn. 

Q. I may be able to direct your memory to something in a moment, but do 
you remember their address, or the name of the street in which they 
lived? A. I can’t say that I remember the address; it was Herkimer 
Street or Herkimer Road. 

Q. It was either Herkimer Street or Herkimer Road ? A. I think so. 

Q 1 will leave it there for the moment. When you went there, did you meet 
your old friend Gertrude Emily Joyce and her husband? A. Yes. 

Q. Michael Joyce. A. Yes. 

Q. Was that the first time you had met Michael Joyce, or had you met him 
before? A. That was the first time I actually met him, but I think I 
remember seeing him in Shaw when he came to see his wife’s family 
before they were married. 

Q. His fiancee’s family? A. Yes; I can’t be clear on that; that was the 
first time I met him. 

Q . Had they any children or child when you got there in 1906 ? A. One 
boy, William Joyce. 

Q. About how old would he be roughly when you saw him at the end of 1906 ? 
A. I should think a few months; I can’t remember exactly. 

Q. He was a few months old, was he ? A. Yes. 

Q . Used you to visit the Joyces seldom or often after that ? A. Very often. 
They either came to see us or we went to see them. 

Q . About how often did you see each other, roughly, at that time ? A. I 
wouldn’t be able to tell you that ; once a month perhaps. 

Q. Up to what time did you continue to see them constantly — for how many 
years or how many months ? A. Michael Joyce left Brooklyn some time 
in 1909, and his wife followed very shortly afterwards. 

Q. Michael Joyce left New York in about 1909, and his wife went before or 
after? A. Afterwards. 

Q. That was without the son, William Joyce, or did the son go too ? A . The 
son went too; to Ireland, 1 believe. 

Q. You believe they went to Ireland ? A. Yes. 

Q , From the first time when you got there in the winter of 1906 up till 1909 
had you seen this boy gradually growing up ? A. Yes, I had visited his 
father's house. 

Q . Now I want to test your memory about something. Before Michael Joyce 
went away from the United States, did he have to have some sort of 
document? A. A passport he had. 

Q, 1 think Michael Joyce left for the port of embarkation before the passport 
arrived; he left for New Jersey before the passport arrived? A. He 
left his home in Herkimer Street ; I took his passport to Hoboken in New 
Jersey. 

Q. Did you notice what sort of passport it appeared to be ? A . No, I did 
not. I was just asked to take his passport, and I took it. 

Q . Where did you get it from ? A. From his wife. 

Q. Did she hand it to you ? A. Yes. 

Q. That would be in New York City, would it ? A. In Brooklyn. 

Q. That was the last you saw of the Joyces for a bit, was it not ? A . His 
wife remained, and we saw her more in that period than we bad before. 



THE TRIAL OF W I L LIAM JOYCE 


83 


Q. And then she in turn went off from the United States too ? A . Yes. 

Q. With the boy William Joyce ? A. Yes. 

Q. Had you any knowledge of the nationality of Michael or Gertrude Joyce 
when you were seeing them in New York ? 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, would that be evidence ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Well, if what the prisoner said as to his nationality is 
evidence, why is not what the father said evidence ? 

The Attorney-General: An admission made by the prisoner is evidence 
against himself ; the father is not a party to these proceedings. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: No, he is dead, and I shall admit the evidence, Mr. 
Attorney. 

The Attorney-General: If your Lordship pleases. 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett : Do you know where Michael Joyce was born ? A . No. 

Q . In what country, do you know ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker: You are straying a little from the question you asked. 
I think you are entitled to know whether the man, at the time he knew him, 
was passing as an American subject. 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett: That is what I intended to ask him. (To the witness) 
You knew Michael Joyce for about three years, 1 believe ? A. Between 
two and three years. 

Q. Do you know whether he was passing under any particular nationality, 
and if so, what, at that time ? A. He told me he was an American citizen ; 
he advised me to become one too. 

Q. With regard to that passport which you carried from Mrs. Joyce to Mr. 
Joyce, have you any recollection as to what sort of passport that was ? 
A. No. 

Q. As we know, the first world war broke out in 1914. Did you come across 
to England in 1915? A. Yes. January, 1915. 

Q . With your wife, and did you go to Shaw ? A. 1 went to Marske-by-Sea 
in Yorkshire. 

Q. You came back with your wife to this country ? A. Yes. 

Q. By that time had you changed your nationality or not ? A. The con- 
tractors — 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Do answer the question, please. 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett : Had you by that time changed your nationality or not ? 
A. Yes. 

Q . What to ? A. An American citizen. 

Q. When did you do that, in what year— before the war or after ? A. Before 
the war, when I was working for S. Pearson & Son on the State contract 
for New York. 

Q . How long before the first war broke out did you become an American 
citizen. A. Five years, I should think. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What does he say ? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett: “About five years before the first great war 1 think I 
became an American citizen.” (To the witness) When you were in 
England at that time from 1915 onwards, did you see anything of your 
friends Mr. and Mrs. Joyce ? A. No, I did not. 

Q. When did you next see Mr. and Mrs. Joyce or their son ? During the 
war was it ? A. No, I think they were in Ireland. 

Q. Did you see them during the war? Did they ever come over to this 
country? A . I don’t know about that; I don’t remember I saw them 
because I was busy on Government work. 

Q. When did you next see them after they left New York in 1909? When 
after that did you next see them, and where ? A. I should think it was 
about 1919. 



84 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


g . Where did you see them, in what place ? I do not mean in what house ? 
A. East Dulwich. 

Q . Did they still have their boy William Joyce ? A. Yes, and other children, 
g. If he was born in 1906, by 1919 he would be about 13, would he not; that 
is a matter of arithmetic. Did you ever see him at a place called Shaw in 
Lancashire? A . See who? 

g. Either of the Joyces; Mr. or Mrs. or William ? A. No, I never went to 
Shaw myself. 

g . Then you can’t have seen them at Shaw. Did you have to register yourself 
as an alien over here? A . Yes. 

g. Do you know whether Michael or his wife had to register ? A. I do. 
g. What as ? A. As an alien. 

g. When was that that they were registered as aliens here, in about what 
year ? A. I think 1917, when I had to register as an alien, 
g. How do you know that, if you didn’t see them until 1919. Was that 
something they told you ? A. Yes, I know it because it almost amounted 
to persecution when I arrived in this country, 
g. Listen again. How did you know that the Joyces had to register as aliens 
in 1917, if you didn’t see them until 1919 ? A. As I say, it almost amounts 
to persecution ; if you are an alien in this country the police hunt you from 
one county to another. 

g. I will try once again; don’t worry about the persecution. A . No, but 
you asked me how 1 know, and I am telling you, because she told us of 
the trouble she was having. 

g. In 1916 did you go back to the United States in the employment of the 
British Government ? A. Yes, I did, as a British subject, 
g. Did you come back here in 1917 or about 1917 ? A. Yes. 
g. Were you then working in Yorkshire helping to build a school for gunnery ? 
A. Yes, that’s right; I made a mistake in the first statement. That was 
the time I went to Yorkshire. The first time I did not go to Yorkshire, 
I went to Shaw in Lancashire. 

g. It isn’t easy to remember all these things. When you came back here 
in 1915, do you now say you went to Shaw in Lancashire ? A. Yes. 
g. Was that where you had to register as an alien ? A. Yes. 
g. Did you ever see the Joyces at Shaw ? A. I don’t remember, 
g. Then you came back, as we know now, in 1917, and were you helping to 
build a school for gunnery ? A. Yes, I was. 
g. And in 1919 you told us you saw the Joyces again who came over on a 
visit ? A. Yes. 

g. Did you see the Joyces on and off from that time onwards ? A. Mrs. 
Joyce and the children, yes. 

g. Up till when ? A. Almost up till Mrs. Joyce’s death, 
g. That would be in 1941, would it not ? A. Later than that, 
g. 1944? A. Yes. 

g. Seeing the child, William Joyce, when he was a small baby, seeing him up 
till he was three, seeing him in 1919, and seeing him again when he came 
back, can you tell us by looking round this court who William Joyce is ? 
A. That is William Joyce. ( Indicating prisoner .) 
g. You kept in touch with the Joyce family all those years, did you ? A. Yes. 
Mr. Curtis-Bennett : I am going, with my learned friend’s leave, to put this 
document to the witness. (To the witness) Will you look at this, Mr. 
Holland, before we read it One side of the document has writing in one 
hand, has it not ? A. Yes. 
g. And the other side in another hand ? A. Yes. 

g. Do you recognise either of those handwritings? A . Do I recognise 
either? 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


85 


Q. Yes. A. Yes. 

Q. Which one, left- or right-handed, or both ? A. “Gertrude Emily Brooke.” 
Q. That is the right-hand side, is it not ? A. Yes. 

Q. You recognise that handwriting in the entry, do you ? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you recognise the one on the left or not ? A. No sir. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What does he say ? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett : “I believe I recognise the handwriting on the left.” 
However, I produce this document now. It reads like this: “The City 
of New York. Department of Health . State of New York. Certificate 
and Record of Marriage . No. of Certificate " — a number which I can’t read 
— “of Michael F. Joyce and Gertrude E. Brooke . Groom's Residence : 1377 
Herkimer Street. Bride's Residence : Shaw , Lancashire , England. Groom's 
Age: 36 years. Bride's Age : 25 years. Groom's Colour : White . Bride's 
Colour: White. Groom Single, Widowed or Divorced : Single. Bride . 
Single, Widowed or Divorced : Single. Groom's Occupation : Contractor . 
Birthplace : Ireland. Bride's Birthplace : England. Groom's father's name : 
Martin. Bride's father's name : William. Groom's mother's maiden name : 
Mary Naughton. Bride's mother's maiden name : Emily Warburton. Number 
of Groom's tnarriage : Isf. Number of Bride's marriage : lsf. J hereby 
certify that the above-named Groom and Bride were joined in marriage by me 
in accordance with the Laws of the State of New York at All Saints R.C. 
Church in the Borough of Manhattan , City of New York , this 2nd day of 
May , 1905. Signature of person performing the Ceremony : C. A. Crowley . 
Official Station: Clergyman. Residence: 47 E. \29 th Street , N.Y. 
Witnesses to the Marriage : John J. Ferris. Mary Naughton." (To the 
witness.) When you became a British subject again, Mr. Holland, did you 
have to go through some formalities ? A. Yes. 

Q. You went through them, did you ? A. Yes. 

The Attorney-General: No questions. 

Edwin Quentin Joyce, Sworn . 

Examined by Mr. Slade. 

Q. Is your name Edwin Quentin Joyce ? A . Yes. 

Q . Do you live at 86 Underhill Road, East Dulwich ? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you a Civil Servant ? A. Yes. 

Q . Are you the third son of Michael Francis Joyce ? A. Yes. 

Q. And Gertrude Emily Joyce ? A. Yes, that is correct. 

Q. Was your mother’s maiden name Brooke ? A. Yes, that is so. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Michael Francis Joyce and Gertrude Emily Brooke: 
is that it ? A. Yes, my Lord. 

Mr. Slade: Your mother’s maiden name was Gertrude Emily Brooke? 
A. Yes. 

Q . Were you bom in Galway, Ireland, on the 28th August, 1917 ? A . Yes, 
that is correct. 

Q . Do you see the prisoner in the dock ? A. Yes. 

Q . What relation is he to you, if any ? A. He is my eldest brother. 

Q. What child of the marriage were you, second, third, fourth or what ? A. I 
was the third child of the marriage. 

Q. Who is the second child of the marriage? A. The second child of the 
marriage was my elder brother Francis Martin Joyce. 

Q. How many more children were there besides the three you have mentioned ? 

A. I have a younger brother and a younger sister. 

Q . We had better have their names ? A. My sister is the elder, Gertrude 
Joan Brooke Joyce, and my younger brother is Robert Patrick Joyce. 

Q . Is your sister still alive ? A. Yes, my sister is still alive. 

Q. Are your two brothers also alive ? A. Yes, they are both alive. 



86 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Q. Did your father ever have any conversation with you with regard to his 
nationality ? A. Yes, he mentioned that upon a number of occasions. 

Q. What did he say to you about it. First of all, what did he tell you, if any- 
thing, that his nationality was ? 

The Attorney-General : I must formally object again to this, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Well, Mr. Slade, I think that the nationality under which 
a man passes is a different thing from specific statements made by a man. 
I think it is some evidence which is admissible in a case of this kind to say 
that a man was generally recognised or taken to be a citizen of a certain 
country, but where there is an issue of this kind I think statements made 
by the father of the man to this witness is on a different basis, and I do not 
think it is strictly admissible. 

Mr. Slade : I can give your Lordship my authority, but I do not desire to press 
it; 1 would not have put the question if it had not been supported by the 
authorities. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : No. 

Mr. Slade : The case I have in mind is Re Perton , 1885, 53 Law Times , page 707. 
There is another authority which is helpful; that is the Tipperary Case , 
1 875, 3 O'Malley & Hardcastle , at page 1 9. The way I make my submission 
is this. There are two kinds of declarations by a deceased person which 
are admissible (we already have evidence that Michael Joyce is deceased) : 
declarations against financial interests — I do not suggest that that is this — 
and declarations against proprietary interests. The authority in re Perton 
is the authority for the proposition that an admission in regard to status 
is an admission against one proprietary interest in this way: only a British 
subject is entitled to the franchise, only a British subject is entitled to become 
a member of the House of Commons, and so on, and to make a declaration 
that you are no longer a British subject is a declaration against proprietary 
interests. 

I have not got in re Perton here, but I remember the facts, and shortly 
they were these. In that case, which in a sense may be termed a pedigree 
case, the question turned upon whether a deceased person was legitimate 
or illegitimate. The Crown were claiming the estate upon the footing 
that the deceased person was illegitimate, and the Crown put in evidence 
which was not objected to, which was admitted, containing a declaration 
by the deceased person himself that he was illegitimate. 

The case is reported in 53 Law Times Reports. It was admitted on two 
grounds : firstly, that it was a pedigree case and it was admissible on that 
ground, and the learned Judge also said that he thought it was admissible 
as being against interest. The case is also cited in the 11th Edition of 
Taylor on Evidence , volume 1, page 461, as authority for the statement that 
admissions against status are declarations against interest. It doesn’t 
matter whether the declaration is oral or in writing. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What do you say, Mr. Attorney ? 

The Attorney-General: My Lord, the rule in pedigree cases is, of course, a 
well-known one, but there is a great distinction, in my submission, between 
pedigree cases and in cases concerning nationality. I have not had the 
opportunity of seeing the case to which my learned friend referred, but there 
is a passage in Archbold at page 425 which is not uninteresting in this 
connection. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Under the heading of what ? 

The Attorney-General : “Private Documents.” My learned friend has said 
there is no distinction in principle between oral evidence and evidence of 
documents in these cases. “In pedigree cases an entry in a family Bible, 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


87 


an examined copy of an inscription on a tombstone, a pedigree hung up 
in a family mansion, and the like, are admissible in evidence; but there 
does not appear to be any authority extending this principle to criminal 
cases.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker: This is not dealing with a declaration made against his 
interest, is it ? 

The Attorney-General: No, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: The question is whether the rule about declaration 
against interest is peculiar to any one class, or whether it is common to 
criminal cases as well. 

The Attorney-General: In my submission, if it exists at all, it stands on the 
same basis as the declaration as to pedigree; it has never been extended 
to a criminal case. 

Mr. J ustice Tucker : If I am asked to rule upon this I shall want some assistance, 
Mr. Attorney ; I cannot deal with this satisfactorily on the rather meagre 
material I have got before me at the moment. 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, it will be interesting to see the cases. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : 1 must see the cases if the Defence persist in it. 

Mr. Slade: My Lord, the fault is entirely mine; I have brought so many 
books; it is to be found in Times Law Reports. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Slade, would it be convenient for you to call any 
other witness and defer this ? 

Mr. Slade: I will defer that question altogether; I will pass away from that 
matter altogether. (To the witness) Mr. Edwin Joyce, in 1923 did your 
family remove from Lancashire to Allison Grove, West Dulwich ? A. Yes, 
that is correct. 

Q. In September 1940 was your house almost completely destroyed by enemy 
action ? A. Yes, it was. 

Q. I believe there was saved a trunk, some furniture and one or two small 
boxes ? A. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Q. When did your father die ? A. My father died in February 1941. 

Q. Do you happen to remember the date of the month ? A. The 19th. 

Q. Did he die at 56, Underhill Road ? A. Yes. 

Q. Is your mother alive or dead ? A . My mother died last year. 

Q. Can you give my Lord and the jury the date when your mother died ? 
A. Yes, it was the 15th September, 1944. 

Q. Have you been through all the papers, including the papers mentioned in 
the property that was saved, all your father's papers ? A. Yes, I have 
been through all my father’s effects. 

Q. You have, I believe, been able to find nothing dealing with the question 
of his nationality ? A. No, nothing at all. 

Q . Do you remember an incident some years ago when certain documents 
were destroyed ? A. Yes, I do. 

Q. About how long was that ? A. To the best of my recollection, about 
eleven years ago. 

Q. Who destroyed them ? A. My father destroyed them. 

Q. Just say yes or no to this question. Did your father tell you or give you 
the reason why he was destroying them ? A. He did. 

Q, Did you see him burn any of the papers ? A. I saw him bum a number 
of papers. 

Q. Did you notice anything about any of the papers that you saw him burn ? 
A. Yes, I did notice one thing. 

Q . Was that one of them that was destroyed by burning ? A. I believe it 
was destroyed, yes; it was amongst those that he was preparing for 
destruction. 



88 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Q. What did you observe about it ? A. It had an American Eagle embossed 
on it, and I believe also there was a seal, a sort of red seal towards the bottom 
of the sheet. 

Q. From amongst the papers you found do you produce a copy of a marriage 
certificate? A. I did, yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : You say “amongst the papers I found.” Tell us when ? 
A. When I was hunting for papers in connection with my father’s 
nationality. 

Q . How long ago was that ? A. Just after proceedings were instituted at 
Bow Street. 

Mr. Slade : Will you look at this document and tell my Lord and the jury 
whether that is the document you found ? A. Yes, that is the document 
I found amongst his effects. 

Q. To whom does that marriage certificate relate ? A. It relates to my father 
and mother. 

Q. Your father’s name according to the certificate is Michael F. Joyce, or 
Michael Francis Joyce, is it not ? A. Yes, that is so. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: “Michael F. Joyce” it is. 

Mr. Slade : Did your father always sign his name “Michael F. Joyce,” or 
in some other way ? A. In some other way I have seen his name signed. 

Q . How would he sign it when he did not sign it “Michael F. Joyce ?” A. 
“Michael Joyce” or “M. F. Joyce.” 

Q . In addition to that document I want you to produce some more documents 
that you found, if you will. One is the tenancy agreement. Would you 
mind looking at this document and telling me whether that is a document 
that you found amongst your father’s papers ? A. Yes, this is one of 
the documents I found. 

Q. In whose handwriting is the signature “Michael F. Joyce” to that document? 
A. My father's handwriting. 

Q. Is “Michael F. Joyce,” the signature, the only part of that document which 
is in your father's handwriting? A. Might I have a look at it again 
to make sure ? Yes, that is the only part of it that I recognise as being his 
handwriting. 

Q. May I have the will ? Would you mind looking at that Will; was that 
another document that you found amongst your father's papers ? A. Yes, 
that was another document. 

Q . Was that found when your father died in 1941 ? A. No, it was not found 
at that time. 

Q . I suppose your mother must have taken out the Letters of Administration 
and got the probate ? A. Yes, she did that. Might I perhaps add 

Q . Tell my Lord and the jury what, if any, portions of that document are in 
your father’s handwriting. Perhaps the easiest way to do it would be to 
leave out the signatures of the two attesting witnesses for the moment. 
Apart from the signatures of the two attesting witnesses, in whose hand- 
writing is the remainder of the document ? A. My father’s handwriting. 

Q . All of it except the signatures of the two attesting witnesses ? A. Except 
the signature of the two attesting witnesses. 

Q . Will you look at this paid cheque ? In whose handwriting is the signature 
on the body of the cheque apart from the print ? A. My father’s hand- 
writing, sir. 

Q. Is that a cheque made payable to your brother, William Joyce ? A. Yes 
that is so. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the date ? 

Mr. Slade: 26th April, 1923. (To the witness .) Is that right? A . Yes, 
that is correct. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


89 


Q. The documents show it, but, so that the jury may know, the tenancy 
agreement was dated the 10th July, 1910; the Will was dated 23rd April, 
1917, and the one you have in your hand, the cheque, is the 26th April, 
1923? A. Yes. 

Q . Is this an L.C.C. Education Form dated 20th November, 1935 ? A . Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What is the date ? 

Mr. Slade: 20th November, 1935. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Where does that come from? A. From the London 
County Council. 

Q. Where did you find it ? A , T have found it amongst those old effects of 
my father in one of the tin boxes. 

Mr. Slade: That refers to your sister, Gertrude Joan Brooke Joyce? A . 
Yes. 

Q . Would you mind telling my Lord and the jury what portion, if any, of that 
document is in your father's handwriting? A. With the exception 
of the signature of the witness and the address and the occupation of the 
witness, the rest of that is my father’s handwriting. 

Q. Do you also produce a letter purporting to be addressed by your father to 
you, commencing, “Dear Quentin,” and signed “Father.” Tell me in 
whose handwriting that letter is ? A. This letter is my father’s hand- 
writing. 

Q. What is the date of it? A. 13th March, 1940. 

Q . Can T have the entries in the Civil Register ? Would you mind looking 
at that document; have you ever seen it before or not ? A. Yes, I have 
seen this before. 

Q. Look carefully at the handwriting on the left-hand side. Whose hand- 
writing is that ? A, That is my father's handwriting. 

Q . The left-hand side sets out the particulars of the bridegroom to a marriage 
celebrated on the 2nd May, 1905 ? A. Yes, that is correct. 

Q. We have already had the right-hand side identified as the handwriting 
of your mother. A. Yes. 

Mr. Slade: My Lord, that concludes all the evidence in chief on the subject 
I mentioned. Perhaps I may take Per ton's case shortly. The headnote 
says: “ Evidence — Illegitimacy — Declarations of deceased person whose 
legitimacy is questioned — Family Tradition — Admissibility .” 

Mr. Justice Tucker: 1 will follow it as you read it. 

Mr. Slade: Perhaps the Attorney-General will follow it also. 

“P. died intestate , and the Crown claimed his property on the ground that 
he was also illegitimate. The evidence which it relied on to prove illegitimacy 
were (1) declarations made and letters written by P. whilst alive asserting 
his own illegitimacy; (2) absence of proof that the man whom P's next of 
kin asserted to be P's legitimate father was alive at the date of P's conception; 
(3) family tradition ." — I don’t think I need trouble your Lordship with 
that. I will try to find the passage in the long Judgment which deals, not 
with the pedigree point, but with the declaration against interest. I see 
a passage here, the last line but one on page 709, this is from the Judgment 
of Mr. Justice Chitty : “ Another ground which occurs to me for admitting the 
evidence is that the declaration is against the proprietary and pecuniary 
interest of the person who makes it. If a man is seen cutting a tree , that 
is considered to be some evidence of ownership , and the statements he makes 
at the time are admissible in evidence of course as against him and those who 
claim under him. The basis on which the declarations of deceased persons 
against their interest are admitted is the great probability of truthfulness. 
It is considered to be most improbable that a man would not tell the truth in 
a matter of that kind. That is only a practical rule; it is not an absolute 
guarantee of truth , because cases have been known where a declaration 



90 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


against pecuniary interest has been made with a sinister purpose . When 
the sinister purpose is established in evidence , then , of course, the declaration , 
though against interest , falls to the ground; but, still, the existence of this 
interest is considered to be a sufficient general guarantee of the truthfulness 
of the statement. Now, to my mind, every man has a strong prima facie 
interest in maintaining his own legitimacy — of avoiding that kind of stigma 
which society attaches to a man, more or less justly or unjustly, because he is 
illegitimate. Cases no doubt have occurred in which a man has preferred to 
be thought the illegitimate son of a profligate nobleman rather than the son 
of an honest tradesman. Such cases are rare , and, to my mind, are not 
sufficient to form a general line for action. The declaration of the deceased 
person in regard to his legitimacy or illegitimacy is one which relates to his 
status and to his rights Here we are dealing with status. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: That was in fact a pedigree case, was it not? 

Mr. Slade: It was a pedigree case, my Lord, and the learned Judge puts his 
decision upon both grounds. I think in the Times Law Reports it says 
there was also another ground. Both were cases of interest; one was 
legitimacy, and now we are dealing with nationality, and in my respectful 
submission most people in this country would consider it very much 
against their interest to admit they had lost their British nationality; it 
would deprive them of a number of privileges, and in my submission it 
would be a declaration against proprietary interest. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What do you say on that, Mr. Attorney ? 

The Attorney-General: That it is against interest I am not for a moment 
disputing. The question in this case in my submission is, first of all, 
whether declarations against interest are admissible in criminal cases, and, 
secondly, whether this is a declaration against interest in fact. As to the 
first point, may I refer your Lordship to a passage in Roscoe's Criminal 
Evidence. I have the 15th edition at page 28. There, towards the bottom 
of the page, are set out the numerous exceptions — I think there are at least 
eight of them — to the ordinary hearsay rules ; declarations against interest 
is one of those eight. Then in the following paragraph there is a reference 
to the first five of those heads, which includes the declaration against interest, 
and it says : “ Evidence under these heads seems to be unknown in criminal 
cases I would say frankly and at once that without some considerable 
research into the cases I should not like to argue that such declarations 
were not of themselves admissible in criminal cases, but one would have 
to see what justification there was for the rule that appears to be here sug- 
gested, that what was admissible in a civil case would not be admissible in 
a criminal case. 

I put my objection for the moment on the ground that this is not a 
declaration against interest ; amd I would like to adopt the objections which 
my learned friend made yesterday to the admission of oral evidence in regard 
to these matters. Those objections, if well founded, would appear to be 
equally applicable to a declaration of a deceased person in regard to the 
same matter. Is a declaration as to nationality a declaration against 
interest ? I am bound to say it comes a little surprisingly from the Defence 
in this case to say that a declaration of a man that he is not of British 
nationality is a declaration against his interest; it may be a declaration 
against certain interests and not against others. A declaration that a man 
is not a British subject may deprive him of certain British rights, but it may 
entitle him to other rights which would accrue to him under the nationality 
which he professes. 

I ask your Lordship to say this is not a declaration against interest in 
law. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : I shall not exclude this evidence. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


91 


Mr. Slade (to the witness ): Mr. Joyce, did your father at any time discuss 
his nationality with you? A . Yes, sir; he did so on a number of 
occasions. 

Q . Did he say what his nationality was ? A. Yes, he told me that. 

Q . What did he say his nationality was ? A. He said that he was American. 

Q . May I get a few dates. You told us you were born in 1917 ? A. Yes, 
that is correct. 

Q. Can you give us some sort of idea of the years or period of years with 
reference to your own age when he discussed his nationality with you ? 
A. I should say when I was about ten years old I was first conscious of his 
having mentioned that, between ten and eleven; and then on other 
occasions after that time. That is the earliest I can recall. 

Q . The first occasion was when you were about ten years old ? A . Yes, 
when I was about ten. 

Q. And thereafter, as you have told us, on a number of occasions ? A. Yes. 

Q . On other occasions did he tell you he was American ? A. In a general 
way, yes. 

Q. On other occasions when he spoke about his nationality ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did he say anything when he told you he was American ? A. Yes, he 
did. 

Q What did he say to you ? A. He told me not to talk about the matter 
outside as it might not be to his interest if the facts were made generally 
known. 

Q. A Mrs. Holland, whom 1 was hoping to call, is ill, so 1 will put these two 
postcards to you. Will you look at these two postcards and tell my Lord 
and the jury whether you identify the handwriting ? A. Yes, sir, I identify 
this handwriting. 

Q . In whose handwriting are they? A. This is the handwriting of my 
mother. 

Q . Are they addressed by your mother ? A. One is addressed to Mrs. Frank 
Holland, 1019 Boston Road, New York City, and the other one is addressed 
to Mrs. Emily Holland at 1019 Boston Road, New York City. 

Q. Can you see the postmark ? A. The postmark on the latter is Brooklyn, 
New York, as far as I can see, July, 2.30 p.m. The postmark is partly 
obliterated. 

Q, The postcards themselves do not happen to be dated on the other side, 
do they ? A. I am afraid I cannot see any address here. On the other 
one addressed to Mrs. Frank Holland, it is dated 15th October, 12.30 a.m., 
1907, and it is postmarked Brooklyn, New York. 

The Attorney-General: No questions. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Slade, I am sure it is unnecessary for me to draw 
your attention to the fact that there has been no questioning of the two last 
witnesses. 

Mr. Slade: I fully appreciate that, my Lord, and I had it in mind when I put 
those two postcards in, but there was one reason for doing so. 

John Woodmansey, Sworn. 

Examined by Mr. Curtis-Bennett 

Q. What is your full name ? A. John Woodmansey. 

Q. What are you ? Are you a Detective Superintendent in the Lancashire 
Constabulary ? A . That is so. 

Q* At Hutton, near Preston ? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you in the Chief Constable’s Office. A. Yes. 



92 THE TRIAL Or WILLIAM JOYCE 

Q. Do you produce the correspondence —it is all in one, correspondence, 
records, reports and Aliens Register — relative to the registration of Michael 
Joyce and Gertrude Emily Joyce as aliens here in 1917? A. That is 
correct, sir. 

Q . Perhaps we can go through them together. Do they begin with a File 
No. A.L.140. County Police Office. Rochdale, 7th May, 1917”? A. 
That is so, yes. 

Q. “From Acting Superintendent at Rochdale to Chief Constalble. Aliens 
Identity Book. Gertrude Emily Joyce, Serial No. 10273.” A. Yes. 

Q. Have you got the Identity Book ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Is that an extract from it ? A. Yes. 

Q. Does it read like this: “Gertrude Emily Joyce, an American, residing at 
31 Manchester Road, Shaw, applies for an identity book. Joyce came to 
this country on 26th April, 1917, along with her husband for the purpose 
of proving a will and intends to return to America on or about the 11th 
instant. She is unable to produce any documentary evidence as to her 
nationality. One shilling, cost of identity book, received”; and that is 
signed by an official. A. J. T. Clarke. 

Q. Followed by a document dated the 8th of May, 1917 ? A. Yes. 

Q. “From the Chief Constable to Superintendent at Rochdale. Identity 
Book, Gertrude E. Joyce. As the above-named proposes to leave the 
country on or about the 11th instant C.C.” — What does that mean ? A 
That means “Chief Constable.” 

Q. “Does not propose to issue an identity book to alien as it will probably 
not be required be her” A. It is “ by her,” sir. 

Q. The next document is the 25th of June, 1917: “From Superintendent at 
Rochdale to Chief Constable. Alien, Gertrude Emily Joyce. Serial 
No. 10273. Gertrude Emily Joyce, American, who has been staying at 
31 Manchester Road, Shaw, since 26th April, 1917, left this district on 
8th June, 1917, to go to 1 Rutledge, Rock barton, Galway, Ireland, without 
notifying the police. (Signed) R. Jump. Superintendent.” A. Yes. 

Q. Then from the Register of Aliens dated the 25th of June, 1917, there is 
the following extract with regard to “Joyce, Gertrude Emily. Serial 
No. 10273.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the date of the entry in the register ? 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett : 25th of June, 1917. 

The Witness: No, sir, it is the 28th of April, 1917, in the register. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the entry ? Read it out. A. The first one is 
Michael. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : You ask the question, Mr. Curtis-Bennett. 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett : I have got “Surname : Joyce. Christian names : 
Gertrude Emily.” A. Yes. 

Q, “Nationality and birthplace: American” — birthplace “Crompton, Lan- 
cashire.” A. That is right, American by marriage. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Are you reading the 28th of April, 1917, from the register ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Read it out. A. “Serial No. 10273. Date of entry 28.4.17. Joyce.” 
The first entry is “Michael.” 

Q . Yes. A. “Nationality : American. Birthplace : Galway, Ireland. Postal 
address: 31 Manchester Road, Shaw. Occupation: Nil. Date of birth: 
6th December, 1866.” 

Q . What is the second? Is that all the first entry ? A . Then it goes on to 
say “Particulars of family.” 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett: Continue from No. 9 “Particulars of family,” A., 
“Wife: Gertrude E. Son: William, born 24.4.06. Daughter: Frances, 
29.6.12. Date of arrival in district: 26th April, 1917, from Galway 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


93 


Ireland. Remarks column: Visiting Shaw to settle probate of will, then 
returning to Ireland,” and in the column 12, “Signature of alien”— there 
is no signature, but it is marked off “To Ireland 15.5.17.” The second 
item is “10273 (serial number). Joyce, Gertrude Emily. American by 
marriage. Birthplace: Crompton, Lancs. Postal address: 31 Manchester 
Road, Shaw. Occupation: nh. Date of birth: 28th August”— the 
original entry was 1887, and it has been crossed out and made 1879. 
“Particulars of family : Husband,” and then it is marked off 10272. “Date 
of arrival in district and previous place of residence: 26th April, 17. 
Galway, Ireland.” And later on Mrs. Joyce apparently returned to this 
country again and later returned to Galway, Ireland, on the 11th August, 
1919. 

Q. It looks like a mistake in the register: the daughter Frances is spelt 
F-r-a-n-c-i-s. A. Yes, I have no personal knowledge of it. 

Q. It looks as if it ought to be a son ? A. Yes, it does ; it is spelt the wrong 
way. The person who made these entries is not at the moment available. 

Q . Have you got there what is said to be “Change Report” ? A. Yes. 

Q. Is that dated the 25th of June, 1917 ? A. Yes, that’s right. 

Q. “Surname : Joyce, Gertrude Emily. Nationality and birthplace : American. 
Birthplace: Crompton, Lancashire. Postal address: 31 Manchester Road, 
Shaw. Particulars of family: Husband, serial No. 10272. Date of 
arrival in district and previous place of residence: 26th April, 17. 1 Rut- 

ledge, Rockbarton, Galway, Ireland. Arrived in England: 26.4.17. 
Remarks: Change permanent. Date of departure or change: Left on 
8.6.17. New address or destination : 1 Rutledge, Rockbarton.” A. That 
is right. 

Q. Followed by a letter from the Lancashire Constabulary, dated next 
day : From the Chief Constable of Lancashire to the Inspector 
General, Royal Irish Constabulary, The Castle, Dublin. Alien : 
G. E. Joyce. Sir, I enclose herewith form A.R.D., Change Report, in 
respect of the above-named alien who removed from Shaw to Rockbarton 
on the 8th instant without notifying the police of her intended change of 
address. I should be glad to know whether this alien has reported her 
arrival in your area to the police at Rockbarton, and if so will you kindly 
cause her to be interviewed and ascertain what explanation she has to give 
for failing to notify the police at Shaw of her intended change of address 
and inform me of the result. I am, sir, your obedient servant.” A. That 
is correct. 

Q . Is that followed by a letter the date of which is not plain to me. Will 
you read it? A . It is from the “County of Galway, W.R. County 
Inspector’s Office, Galway, 28th June, 1917. Alien: G. E. Joyce. For 
report.” 

Q . And then there is a report reading like this : “I beg to report that Mrs. 
Gertrude Emily Joyce is the wife of Michael F. Joyce of No. 1 Ruttledge 
Terrace, Salthill, one of the most respectable, law-abiding and loyal men 
in this locality and one who has been consistently an advocate of the 
“pro-allied” cause since the beginning of the war. He returned from the 
United States to Ballinrobe, Co. Mayo, in October, 1909, and Mrs. Joyce 
his wife also went there on 2.11.1909, where they remained until May, 
1913, when they came to reside at Salthill where they have extensive house 
property, Mrs. Joyce was bom an Englishwoman at 31 Manchester 
Road, Shaw, Lancashire, and went to the States to marry her husband. 
She states he was only three or four years there altogether and she regrets 
very much not having reported her departure to the police at Shaw and 
says that as her husband had reported himself and told her the matter was 
all right, she did not think a personal report was necessary.” Then, 



94 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


“(A) Neither Michael F. Joyce, her husband, nor herself consider themselves 
aliens. The former asserts that he has abandoned his claim as a citizen 
of U.S.A. by failing to get himself registered there within two years after 
leaving the country for Ireland. They were not considered as aliens here 
and have not been registered as such. (Signed) Bernard Reilly,” followed 
by a note “Where was Michael Joyce born ? If in Ireland did he take 
out naturalisation papers in the U.S.A. ?” “Sergeant Reilly. Salthill, 
2.7.17. I beg to report that Joyce was bom at Ballinrobe, Co. Mayo. 
He emigrated to United States of America and took out naturalisation 
papers there. He left the United States in October, 1909, and has resided 
in the Counties of Mayo and Galway, W.R. ever since.” 

And then there is a further note: “Submitted, 3rd July, 1917. Please 
see (A). Under the circumstances there seems some doubt whether these 
people are aliens at all.” And then over the page in my copy, 6th July, 
1917, there is a letter “From the Chief Constable of Lancashire to the 
Inspector General, Royal Irish Constabulary, The Castle, Dublin. Alien 
Gertrude E. Joyce. Sir, I am much obliged for your report No. 8656 
of the 5th instant. In view of the fact that Mr. Joyce was admitted to 
American nationality and has not been readmitted to British nationality 
I must treat his wife as an American subject. I should be much obliged 
if you would kindly cause Mrs. Joyce to be cautioned for the offence she 
has committed against the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Order.” 
That would be for not reporting her address as an alien ? A. That is 
correct. 

Q. Then the matter closes with “I beg to report having cautioned Mrs. Joyce 
accordingly on this date,” namely, 8th July, 1917, “(Signed) Bernard 
Reilly.” A. That is correct, sir. 

Q. I think the other letter on the file is A. That was sent in a report 

from the Chief Constable to the local Superintendent for him to note. 

The Attorney-General : No questions. 

Bernard Reilly, Sworn. 

Examined by Mr. Curtis-Bennett. 

Q. Is your name Bernard Reilly ? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you live at 73 Almonds Green, West Derby, Liverpool ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q . Are you a retired police officer ?. A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember a person called Michael Joyce ? A. Yes, I do remember 
him well. 

Q. Do you remember the circumstances of certain reports which you made 
in the year 1917 ? A. Yes, I do. 

Q . At that time were you a sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed 
at Salthill, which is about a mile outside Galway? A. Yes, that is 
correct. 

Q . Was Michael Joyce living then at 1 Rutledge Terrace, Salthill ? A. Yes, 
he was living there. 

Q . With his wife ? A. With his wife and his son, the prisoner. 

Q. I was going to ask you that — with his wife and his son the prisoner ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Where was he living ? A. No. 1 Rutledge Terrace. 

Q. Rutledge Terrace— where ? A. Salthill. 

Mr. Curtis-Bennett : Did you visit Michael Joyce for the purpose of finding 
out matters you wanted to know for your report ? A. Yes. 

Q . And speak to him ? A. Yes, I spoke to him and his wife. 

Q. When speaking to Michael Joyce did the question of his nationality arise 
at all? A . Yes. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


95 


Q . Don’t answer this question until you are told you may. Did he tell you 
what his nationality was ? A. He told me he thought at that time that 
his nationality was British, but that he had taken out citizenship papers 
in the United States, but that he thought he had abandoned the claim as 
a citizen on account of not having, after a lapse of two years," got registered 
in the United States again as a citizen. 

Q. He had taken out naturalisation papers in the United States, but he had 
lost that nationality by the lapse of time ? A. Yes. 

Q. In not having asked to be re-registered ? A. Yes. 

The Attorney-General : No questions. 

William Yuile Forbes, Sworn. 

Examined by Mr. Slade. 

Q . Mr. William Yuile Forbes, do you live at 71 Dee Banks, Chester ? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you carry on the profession of an examiner of questioned documents ? 
A. Yes. 

Q . I think at 109 Kingsway, London, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. 
Is that right ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you been employed in that capacity for some twenty years ? A. Yes. 

Q . Have you been employed by departments of His Majesty’s Government ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. The police ? A. Yes. 

Q . Banks and insurance companies ? A. Yes. 

Q. And the American Government ? A. Yes. 

Q . I want you to take, if you wouldn’t mind, various documents. 1 will have 
them handed to you one at a time. Take that one,. Does it purport 
to be an original will dated the 23rd April, 1907 ? A. Yes. 

£>. And now is this a Royal Irish Constabulary form ? A. Yes. 

Q . Dated in the year 1910 ? A. Yes. 

Q . And an original London County Council form dated the 20th of November. 
1935? A. Yes. 

Q . And an original cheque dated the 26th April, 1923 ? A. Yes. 

Q . And an original letter signed “Father” dated the 13th March, 1940? 
A . Yes. 

Q. Now I want you to look at a certificate dated 1945. There is no trouble 
about that, of course, a declaration of intention, and another certificate 
and then a photostat of a petition. A. Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : This is what you call the naturalisation record, I think. 

Mr. Slade: Yes, my Lord. (To the witness.) On the petition, Mr. Forbes, 
the name Michael Joyce appears four times, does it not ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you carefully and microscopically examined the five documents that 
I have just handed to you with the signature “Michael Joyce” where it 
appears for the second and fourth times on the petition ? A. Yes. 

Q . Have you made a number of enlargements ? A. I have. 

Q. Will you produce them— have you got them there with you ? A. Yes. 

Q. You may take it that it is not challenged by the Prosecution that those 
documents, or the relevant portions of them, the signatures, are in the 
prisoner’s father, Michael Joyce’s handwriting. A. Yes. 

Q. In your opinion in whose handwriting are the signatures “Michael Joyce” 
where they appear for the second and fourth times in the petition on the 
naturalisation record ? A . The same handwriting. 

Q. Have you any professional doubt about that whatever? A. None. 

Q. Of course, the naturalisation record petition is dated with the year 1894 ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. The earliest of the documents that I have just put before you is 1910, is 
it not ? A. Yes, the Constabulary 



96 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Q. So that the shortest distance in fact was sixteen years between 1894 and 
1910? A, Yes. 

Q. To take it a step further, assuming for one moment that Michael Joyce 
was bom in 1870 he would be twenty-nine in 1899 and forty in 1910? 
A. Yes. 

Q . Would you expect to find some change in the handwriting of a man in 
1894 as compared with 1910? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you taken note of that fact and made allowance for those changes ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. 1 will leave it with this examination in chief. If the Prosecution desire to 
know the reasons in detail which have led you to form your opinion, you 
can give them to them ? A. Yes. 

The Attorney-General: No questions. 

Mr. Slade: Thank you, Mr. Forbes. {To the Judge) Mr. Stebbings, your 
Lordship will hear, is entitled to diplomatic immunity, and is entitled to 
assist your Lordship on any question. 

Henry Endicott Stebbings, Sworn . 

Examined by Mr. Slade. 

Q. Is your name Henry Endicott Stebbings, and are you the First Secretary 
of the American Embassy in London ? A. I am. 

Q. Are you also commissioned as constable, being the officer designated by 
the Ambassador as chief of the Consular Section of the Embassy in 
London? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you also Supervising Officer for all the other American Consulates in 
Great Britain and Northern Ireland? A. Yes, I am. 

Q. Have you been a Foreign Service Officer for some fourteen years ? A. Yes. 

Q . In the course of your training and duties have you become familiar with the 
citizenship laws of the United States ? A. 1 have. 

Q. Not only as they are to-day, but as they were in 1 894, for example ? A. Yes. 

Q . Perhaps, Mr. Stebbings, you would be good enough to look at what we 
call the naturalisation record. I think you have been good enough to look 
at these or copies of these documents before ? A. Yes, 1 have seen copies 
of them. 

Q. And you have seen the declaration of intention ? A . Yes. 

0. And also the petition ? A. Yes. 

Q. The petition consists, among other things, of an oath taken in open Court 
by Michael Joyce on the 25th October, 1894? A. Yes. 

Q. And certified, so to speak, by Citizen of the United States John Duane, 
also sworn in open Court on the same date? A . Yes. 

Q. According to the law of the United States of America what effect had the 
swearing of that oath by Michael Joyce and the swearing of that oath by 
John Duane upon Michael Joyce’s nationality ? A . It granted him 
American citizenship. 

<2- Did he thereupon by American law become an American citizen without 
any further formal order or requirement of any description ? A . He did. 

Q . I ask you this in case it should be important. Supposing that this Michael 
Joyce, the one whoever he is who is referred to in this document, married 
in New York and a son was bom to him, after, of course, he bkame an 
American citizen A. Yes. 

Q. According to American law what would be the nationality of that son ? 
A . An American citizen by birth. 

Q. Even assuming at some subsequent time that the father lost the American 
nationality which he had acquired in 1894 according to American law, 
would that have any effect upon the status of the son who was bom in 
America ? A . No. 








JOYCE’S ARRIVAL AT BRITISH SECOND ARMY HEADQUARTERS 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


97 


The Attorney-General: No questions. 

Mr. Slade : My Lord, that is the case for the Defence. Would your Lordship 
be good enough to release the witnesses ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes. 

Mr. Slade : Some come from a distance and they are very anxious to be released. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes, those witnesses who have been called and who 
have not been cross-examined too, can be released. 

Mr. Slade: I also have a number of others whom I have not called. Will 
your Lordship allow all those to be released. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes. 

Mr. Slade : That is the case for the Defence, my Lord. Before 1 address the 
jury perhaps your Lordship would be good enough to give some indication 
to us as to what matters there are for the jury to try ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Attorney, perhaps you would assist me now by 
saying whether, having heard the evidence which has been adduced by the 
Defence you are going to invite the jury to come to the conclusion that 
this man was a British subject or not. 

The Attorney-General: No, my Lord. I indicated as far as I properly could 
in opening that I was not going to press that point, and I certainly do not 
consider it my duty to invite them to say so. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Very well, Mr. Attorney, I think everybody must agree 
that the evidence which has been tendered is really overwhelming. 

The Attorney-General: Yes, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: That leaves us with count 3 as the only effective matter 
which we have to deal with. 

The Attorney-General: Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : With regard to that, Mr. Attorney, I think it would be 
perhaps the most convenient course that you should elaborate your 
submission in regard to that, in order that Mr. Slade may know how to 
put his case and then he could reply. Would that be convenient to you ? 

The Attorney-General: If your Lordship pleases. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : At some time I hope you will be able to give me a little 
assistance in regard to the nature, history and effect of a passport, as to 
which I am at the moment somewhat ignorant. 

The Attorney-General: My Lord, there is very little law on it, but I will 
tell your Lordship what I have been able to discover about it. I will say 
at once, I think that the submission I am about to make to your Lordship 
is not covered by any express authority — it is perhaps none the worse for 
that. I think it was Baron Parke who said in one of the cases that it is 
one of the incalculable advantages of our Common Law that it is applicable 
to new circumstances potentially repeating themselves. 

My general submission is that, when one looks to see what the basis 
of allegiance to the Crown is, one finds that it rests upon the existence of 
protection by the Crown. 

May I first of all refer to two cases which at first sight appear to be 
against me ? It is true of course, as I say, that there is no existing authority 
upon the matter and that hitherto the allegiance due from an alien to the 
Crown has to be dealt with under the name of “local allegiance” and 
has not hitherto been considered in the cases as arising apart from the 
birth in the case of a natural-bom British subject or from residence or from 
oath in the case of those who have not been natural-born subjects. That 
in my submission was so until comparatively modem times. It is a little 
difficult to say exactly when, but until comparatively modem times the 
passport system had not come into being at all and the Crown was not 
in general able to vouch for its citizens or for those whom it was protecting 
once they had left Crown territory. Once a person entitled to protection 



98 THE TRIAL Of WILLIAM JOYCE 

had left the territory over which the Crown had jurisdiction he had to 
prove his right to protection ad hoc and he had no documentary evidence 
which he could carry with him which formed in itself a certificate entitling 
him to protection as, in my submission, a passport does. 

In order to see whether a temporary allegiance which in the cases is 
often described as local allegiance is based merely on presence within the 
territory of the Crown or is based on some other and rather wider notion, 
one has to look at a number of old cases in a number of the old books ; 
and one finds, I think, in all of them, with the exception of the two cases 
to which I am going to draw your attention, the general proposition 
expressed that allegiance — whether it be local allegiance or natural 
allegiance— is based upon protection. You find phrases such as that 
allegiance and protection are correlative things; that they are reciprocal 
things ; that the one draws the other ; and all through the line of authority 
dealing with the matter you will find allegiance to be on that basis of 
protection. 

The chief case which appears at first sight to be against me is the case 
of Johnstone v. Pedlar , reported in 1921, 2 Appeal Cases at page 262. I 
do not think I need trouble your Lordship with the facts in that case, but 
it was a case where the question of the right of an alien to sue in tort was 
under consideration and where the possible defences are discussed at page 
292. In the course of the speech by Lord Sumner there is a passage which 
is against me. Has your Lordship the report? 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes. 

The Attorney-General: In the last paragraph it says: “i Personally I do not 
think that either Lord Coke's language or the maxim to which he refers , 
Protcctio trahit subjectionem et subjectio protectionem, points to such a 
conclusion . The matter which he had in hand is the contrast between 

ligcantia localis, 1 which begins no earlier than and continues no longer than 
the presence of the alien amy within the realm and the lasting allegiance 
of the subject born . 1 do not think that Lord Coke conceived of it as quasi- 

contractual or as involving mutuality That was the passage in Calvin's 
case which seemed to put the thing on the basis of an implied contract, a view 
as to which there is some other authority, but with which Lord Sumner 
in this passage disagrees. He goes on to say: “The principle that the 
sovereign can refuse the alien permission to enter the realm and that the 
alien has no right to enter is inconsistent with the existence of any such basis 
for local ligeance .” My Lord, I confess it is difficult to see why that is 
so. One might have said, I would have respectfully submitted, that an 
alien who chooses to take advantage of the permission of the sovereign 
to enter the realm, having no right to enter it without such permission, 
enters it on the acceptance of the obligation to allegiance when he does so. 
I do not think for the purposes of my case it is necessary to raise the doctrine 
of allegiance on any kind of implied contract or on any basis of mutuality. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : On what basis does Lord Sumner put it then ? 

The Attorney-General: He goes on to say this, my Lord: “It is clear that 
the obligation to obey the laws and that civil and criminal liability in case 
of disobedience to them are not dependent on anything in the nature of an 
actual grant of protection or recognition of the alien's presence or licence 
to him to remain and if his entry having been prohibited , he should contrive 
to enter surreptitiously and for a time be undetected , I conceive that during 
that Interval he would still be liable to suit or prosecution for his acts done 
in defiance of the ordinary law." He bases it, so far as obedience to the 


* •‘Local Allegiance. 0 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


99 


ordinary law is concerned, entirely upon presence, known or unknown, 
within the King’s realm and whether or not it carries with it any right to 
protection. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : He is putting it on the basis of presence alone. 

The Attorney-General : Yes, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What does the right to protection mean ? I thought 
that the right to protection of the alien, one of the rights at any rate, he 
gets is that he is within the King’s peace. 

The Attorney-General : Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Lord Sumner would not object to that proposition. 

The Attorney-General : He is putting it on the rather stronger basis of contract 
and saying that, in spite of the fact that the presence of the alien is unknown, 
he would still be within the general scope of the law. He concedes, I think, 
and I do not think there is any authority which takes a different view, that 
the presence of the alien does give rise to a right of protection: whether 
there is any basis of mutuality about it is another matter. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : The relevance of this case is that he does not take the 
view that there is mutuality and that protection has got nothing to do with 
it. He puts it on the basis of physical presence only. 

The Attorney-General: Yes, my Lord. There is perhaps this to be said 
about it. It does not appear that that matter had been the subject of any 
argument in the course of the case. There is a passage at the bottom 
page 277 in Lord Cave’s speech: “/ should add that the judgment of the 
Master of the Rolls O'Connor in the Court of Appeal was mainly founded 
upon the view that the right of a resident alien to protection is contingent 
upon his observing the duty of allegiance while in the realm , and that the 
respondent having been guilty of treasonable acts had thereby forfeited his 
right to the protection of the King's Courts. But this question was not raised 
in the Defence and either for that reason or because a decision on the wider 
question was desired was not seriously argued in your Lordships' House , 
and accordingly I think it best to express no opinion upon it." 

Then at page 284 there is a further short passage in the course of the 
speech of Lord Atkinson relying on Foster — I shall refer presently to Foster 
— in which Lord Atkinson says: “ For the same reason an alien enemy 
can be prosecuted for high treason if he has accepted the protection of the 
sovereign , but not otherwise." Then at page 297, in the third paragraph 
on that page, there is a short passage in the speech of Lord Phillimore : 
“ From the moment of his entry into the country the alien owes allegiance 
to the King till he departs from it and allegiance, subject to a possible qualifica- 
tion which I shall mention , draws with it protection , just as protection draws 
allegiance" So that there seems to have been some considerable difference 
of view upon this point which had not been argued in the course of the 
case and it was not necessary for the decision of the case. 

Mr. Slade: 1 wonder if the Attorney-General would mind me pointing out 
that, if he had read Lord Atkinson’s remarks at the top of page 284, your 
Lordship would see what “the same reason” was by reading the preceding 
few words. 

Thb Attorney-General: I am obliged. "A friendly alien resident in this 
country can undoubtedly be prosecuted for high treason" — he refers to the 
De Jager case — “ because it can then be averred that he acted contra ligentiae 
suae debitum ( Calvin's case). For the same reason an alien enemy can 
be prosecuted for high treason if he has accepted the protection of the sovereign 
but not otherwise." My Lord, I was going to refer your Lordship to Calvin's 
case. There the liability of the friendly alien was put on that basis that he 
had accepted the protection of the sovereign. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Perhaps this would be a convenient moment to adjourn. 



100 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


( Adjourned for a short time .) 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, the other case which contains the passage 
which appears to be against me is the case of the Stepney Election Petition, 
reported in the 17th volume of the Queen’s Bench Division, 1886, at page 
54. The point in that case was that persons who were bom in Hanover 
before the accession of Queen Victoria to the throne of the United Kingdom 
“and not naturalised are , though resident in the United Kingdom , aliens 
and not entitled to vote at the election of members of Parliament ." At page 
62 there is a passage half-way down the page after the reference to Calvin s 
case : “ Biackstone is equally express : 7/ is a principle of universal law 
that the natural-bom subject of one prince can not by any act of his own — 
no , not by swearing allegiance to another — put ojf or discharge his natural 
allegiance to the former , for this natural allegiance was intrinsic and 
primitive and antecedent to the other , and cannot be divested without the 
concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural 
born subject of one prince to whom he owes allegiance may be entangled 
by subjecting himself absolutely to another , but it is his own act that brings 
him into these straits and difficulties of owing service to two masters , and it 
is unreasonable that by such voluntary act of his own he should be able at 
pleasure to unloose those bands by which he is connected to his natural 
prince And then he gives a reference to Biackstone, and he remarks 
that down to the time of the Revolution of 1 688 for six hundred years the 
oath whenever administered was fc to be faithful to the king and his heirs.’ 
“Now the natural prince of a Hanoverian state not naturalised in any other 
country is undoubtedly the King of Hanover or the sovereign who now by 
conquest represents that king , i.e. the German Emperor . It is not suggested , 
that either the King or the Emperor ever relinquished their claim to the 
allegiance of these subjects : that allegiance therefore remains. Thirdly , 
the inconveniences that would follow from this claim to elect at the will of 
the subject were pointed out in the argument , and they are , as far as an 
argument ab inconvenienti ever can be , practically conclusive. If the Queen 
of these islands and the German Emperor were to to go to war (absit omen, 
as the judges said in Calvin's case , but it has been and may be so again) 
any one of these resident non-naturalised Hanoverians would undoubtedly , 
if serving in the British army and taken prisoner , be liable to be shot as a 
traitor in arms against his sovereign and the case would be the same with 
an Englishman , and there must be many such , residing in Hanover , not 
naturalised and serving in the German armies. The instance of Aeneas 
Macdonald shows, though under a somewhat different head of law , that 
such a case is by no means imaginary ." 

Now, my Lord, I come to the case which appears to be against me: 
“But that a man rightfully and legally in the allegiance of one sovereign 
could be also rightfully and legally treated as a traitor by another cannot 
be the law. Yet it follows inevitably from Mr. Charles's premises when the 
essential character of allegiance is understood. Sir . William Biackstone , 
in the passage already cited, gives such a man small consolation. ‘ The 
natural-bom subject of one prince to whom he owes allegiance may be entangled 
by subjecting himself absolutely to another , but it is his own act which brings 
him into these straits and difficulties of owing service to two masters Sir 
William Biackstone plainly had never heard of the doctrine that a man could 
get rid by election of an allegiance he was born under." My Lord, in my 
submission that passage if one reads it with some care is clearly not wrong, 
because it is the undoubted law and has been for many hundreds of years 
that an alien in this country owing a permanent and natural allegiance to the 
country of his birth may none the less owe local allegiance, at least while 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


101 


he is in this country, and could be prosecuted for treason in this country 
in the doing of something which might indeed have been his duty to do 
for his own natural sovereign. Possibly the significant words here are the 
words that Lord Coleridge uses, “ rightfully and legally ,” and my sub- 
mission is that the quotation from Blackstone makes it quite clear that 
a man may voluntarily place himself under a dual allegiance. Of course, 
there may be a double nationality giving rise to conflicting claims to 
allegiance. I do not know what the American law is, but it is the law of 
some countries that a person bom in some countries is a subject of them, 
although he may be born of a person of a different nationality ; he is by the 
law of that country subject to the laws of nationality of that country. 
There is in my submission the very well settled case of local allegiance in 
its strictest sense due from a resident alien. In any event the passage to 
which I have referred your Lordship there is obiter. 1 With that exception, 
the authorities, as far as they go, are the other way. 

The earliest case is Calvin's Case which is reported in the 7th volume 
of Coke's Reports . Your Lordship will remember that that case — and I 
do not propose to examine it in detail at all, unless your Lordship desires 
it — dealt with the nationality of people born after the accession of King 
James I to the English throne — people born in Scotland. At page 10 
in that report, in paragraph 3, there is a passage on which I rely : “ Concerning 
the local obedience it is observable that, as there is a local protection on 
the King's part , so there is a local ligeance on the subject's part." 

Mr. Slade: Will my learned friend be good enough to give me the reference in 
the English Reports? 

The Attorney-General: It is 6a. Then the case refers to a case of Sherley: 
“ Sherley , a Frenchman , being in amity with the King came into England 
and joined with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and 
Queen and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum, for he 
owed to the King local obedience , that is , so long as he was within the King's 
protection , which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain is 
yet strong enough to make a natural subject , for , if he hath issue here , that 
issue is a natural-born subject." Your Lordship will see that the basis 
of the allegiance which is due from the alien is the protection which the 
alien has whilst he is within the realm : “ He owed to the King local obedience , 
that is , so long as he was within the King's protection." 

Then, my Lord, one goes on to Coke's Institutes , the third volume. 
In the first chapter at the bottom of page 4 there is a reference to Calvin's 
case , and in the last paragraph on that page it is said : “ And all aliens that 
are within the realm of England and whose sovereigns are in amity with the 
King of England are within the protection of the King and do owe a local 
obedience to the King ( are homes within this act) and if they commit high 
treason against the King, they shall be punished as traitors ; but otherwise 
it is of an enemy , whereof you may read at large." My Lord, that reference 
is in my submission an authority for this proposition, that presence within 
the territory of the King is not enough. An alien coming into the King’s 
realm, perhaps as a member of enemy forces, perhaps as a spy remaining 
in this country for some time unknown to the sovereign, is not under a 
duty of allegiance because he is not receiving the protection of the Crown. 
It is only in the case of the alien friend who is not only resident in the 

Obiter dicta , though they may have great weight as such , are not conclusive authority. . . . 
If a Judge thinks it desirable to give his opinion on some point which is not necessary for 
the decision of the case, that of course has not the binding weight of the decision of the 
case and the reasons for the decision/* (Mr. Justice Talbot in Flower v. Ebbw Vale Steel, 
Iron and Coal Co., Ltd., 1934, 2 K.B. 134.) 



102 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


country, but is resident here as a protected person, receiving the benefit 
of the Crown’s protection, that you get the corresponding duty of allegiance 
arising. 

As one goes through the old books one finds the same doctrine repeated 
in the first volume of Hale's Pleas of the Crown at page 59, in paragraph 2 
at the top of page 58. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the chapter ? 

The Attorney-General: It is Chapter ten, under the heading of treason; 
in paragraph 2 it says : “ Because as the subject hath his protection from the 
King and his laws , so on the other side the subject is bound by his allegiance 
to be true and faithful to the King ; and hence all indictments of high treason 
run proditorie , as a breach of the trust that is owing to the King contra 
ligeantiae suae debitum, against that faith and allegiance he owes to the 
King and contra,” and so on, “and hence it is that , if an alien enemy come 
into this kingdom hostilely to invade it, if he be taken he shall be dealt with 
as an enemy , but not as a traitor because he violates no trust nor allegiance . 
But if an alien , the subject of a foreign prince in amity with the King , live 
here and enjoy the benefit of the King's protection and commit a treason , 
he shall be judged and executed as a traitor , for he owes a local allegiance 
There again, my Lord, the matter is being put, as I submit, on this basis, 
that something more is required than the tie of mere presence in the King’s 
realm, something tying the person who is to be put under an obligation of 
allegiance to the King and to the King’s laws and to the protection which 
the King can give ; and thus the distinction is drawn between the enemy 
alien who may be resident in the country for some considerable time 
but who is not enjoying the King’s protection, and an alien who is receiving 
the benefit of the King’s protection. If he enjoy the benefit of the King’s 
protection and commits a treason, then he shall be judged and executed 
as a traitor. 

May I refer your Lordship to East's Pleas of the Crown. At page 52 
in the first volume of East there is a passage to which I invite your Lordship’s 
particular attention because it deals with the case of an alien who is no 
longer within the King’s realm, and it is the first, and I think probably the 
only, authority for the view that, in spite of the fact that the factor of 
residence has ceased, the allegiance may continue; and the allegiance is 
held here to continue because, although residence on the part of the alien 
himself has gone, there remains a tie between the alien and this country 
of a kind which is held to be sufficient to continue the duty of allegiance 
which arose from residence. At the bottom of page 52 your Lordship 
will see the paragraph : “ Local allegiance is that which is due from a foreigner 
during his residence here , and is founded in the protection he enjoys for his 
own person , his family and effects during the time of that residence. This 
allegiance ceases whenever he withdraws with his family and effects , for his 
temporary protection being then at an end the duty arising from it also 
determines. But if he only go abroad himself leaving his family and effects 
here under the same protection , the duty still continues , and if he commit 
treason he may be punished as a traitor , and this whether his own sovereign 
be at enmity or at peace with ours." 

My Lord, it is the fact in this case, of course, that the prisoner left 
his father and mother and some brothers and sisters in this country, but 
he took his wife away with him when he left this country in August, 1939, 
for Germany. Whatever may have been the position with regard to the 
continuance of some family tie, my submission, of course, is that he 
retained a tie with this country by holding a British passport and retaining 
the protection of that document. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


103 


Mr. Justice Tucker : Was the evidence that, when he applied for the passport, 
it included his wife as well ? 

The Attorney-General : I think not, but my learned friend will look it up 
and make quite sure, 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Read from where you were reading, Mr. Attorney. 

The Attorney-General: Yes, my Lord. “ Therefore if he aid even his own 
countrymen in acts or purposes of hostility while he is resident here , he may 
be dealt with in the same manner . The above rule was laid down by all the 
Judges assembled at the Queen's command on the 12 th January , 1707.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : That applies, I apprehend, to all that has gone before. 

The Attorney-General : I apprehend so. I think I shall be able to refer your 
Lordship to another matter in which that is made quite clear. At the 
foot of that page there is a passage just before one gets to the last paragraph : 
“But an alien enemy not domiciled here taken in avowed hostilities against 
the King or his government is no traitor though leagued with rebels , for he 
violates no trust or allegiance . On the trial of several Quakers for their 
third offence upon the statute 16 Car. 2, an act for suppressing seditious 
conventicles , one of them pleaded that he was an alien born in France and 
so not within the penalty of the act which is levelled against every person, etc., 
‘ being a subject of this realm ’ ; but this was overruled because , as long as he 
lived here under the King's protection , he is a subject of the realm and punish- 
able for transgressing its laws , but it was admitted that if the statute had 
said ‘ being a natural-born subject etc., it would not have extended to him.” 

Then there is a passage in Foster's Crown Law at page 185. My learned 
friend in the course of his submission yesterday drew your Lordship’s 
attention to the fact that in Woolmington's case one passage in Foster 
had been overruled, and, although I think my learned friend rather invited 
your Lordship to take this view, your Lordship may think that the whole 
of this authority has not been undermined by the House of Lords in the 
decision in Woolmingtoris case on one part of the matter. On page 185 
there is a reference which I indicated when I cited East to the decision of 
the judges in 1707, Section 4. May I start at Section 2 ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes. 

The Attorney-General : “An alien whose sovereign is in amity with the Crown 
of England residing here and receiving the protection of the law oweth a 
local allegiance to the Crown during the time of his residence. And if during 
that time he committeth an offence which in the case of a natural-born subject 
would amount to treason , he may be dealt with as a traitor. For his person 
and personal estate are as much under the protection of the law as the natural- 
born subjects , and , if he is injured in either , he hath the same remedy at law 
for such injury ” Section 3 : “An alien whose sovereign is at enmity with 
us, living here under the King's protection and committing offences amounting 
to treason , may likewise be dealt with as a traitor. For he oweth a temporary 
local allegiance founded on that share of protection he receive th.” And 
then Section 4 reads : “And if such alien , seeking the protection of the Crown 
and having a family and effects here , should, during a war with his native 
country, go thither and there adhere to the King's enemies for purposes of 
hostility he might be dealt with as a traitor. For he came and settled here 
under the protection of the Crown, and though his person was removed for a 
time his effects and family continued still wider the same protection. This 
rule was laid down by all the Judges assembled at the Queen's command 
12 th January, 1707.” 

My Lord, in Section 1 the basis of the thing is, in my submission, 
that the alien is as much under the protection of the law as the natural- 
bom subject. Equally in the case of the alien who is no longer resident 
but is travelling abroad on the King’s passport, he is equally under the 



104 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


protection of the Crown in whatever foreign country he may happen to be 
as a British subject travelling under the same passport. Both have the 
same passport and both enjoy the same right to protection. 

Then there is a passage in the first volume of the Commentaries at 
page 370 which indeed goes a little further than I find it necessary to go 
myself, although there is some other authority for the view that is here 
expressed. Blackstone deals with the mutuality of the obligation, the 
matter to which Lord Sumner referred in the course of his speech, and 
this is said at page 370: “ Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien or 
stranger-born for so long time as he continues within the King's dominion 
and protection , and it ceases the instant such stranger transfers himself 
from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual , 
and local temporary only ; and that for this reason , evidently founded upon 
the nature of government , that allegiance is a debt due from the subject , 
upon an implied contract with the prince , that so long as the one affords 
protection , so long the other will demean himself faithfully. As therefore 
the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects 
at all times and in alt countries , for this reason their allegiance due to him is 
equally universal and permanent . But on the other hand , as the prince affords 
his protection to an alien only during his residence in this realm , the allegiance 
of an alien is confined in point of time to the duration of such his residence 
and in point of locality to the dominions of the British Empire .” 

My Lord, that statement of the law was no doubt complete at that time. At 
that time the prince did not and could not afford his protection to an alien 
once that alien had given up his residence within the realm; consequently 
the allegiance of the alien was confined to the realm. But in later years, 
with the development of international law and usage, the prince was able 
to afford protection to his subjects outside the realm, and he does so in 
my submission by the issue of a passport: and that passport, whether 
issued to one who is a natural-born British subject or to one whose position 
may be one of statelessness — a condition which the law of all countries 
recognises — or one who is in fact fortuitously an alien, that protection is 
just the same in the case of each of those several categories of persons. 
I rely on this passage as an authority for the view that the whole basis of 
the allegiance is the protection which the sovereign extends to the person 
who in return owes it. 

That view expressed in Blackstone, putting it on the basis of mutuality, 
on the basis of an implied contract, has been discussed in some of the books. 
It finds some favour in the books on international law. For instance, 
in the first volume of Phillimore's International Law, at page 454, which 
your Lordship might allow me to cite, there is this passage : “ With respect to 
the administration of criminal law , it must be remembered that every individual 
on entering a foreign territory binds himself by a tacit contract to obey the 
laws enacted in it for the maintenance of the good order and tranquillity of 
the realm , and it is manifestly not only the right , but the duty , of a state 
to protect the order and safety of the society entrusted to its charge against 
the offences of the foreigner as of the native He puts this as a proposition 
of international law and goes on to say : “This proposition , it should be 
observed, must not be confounded with another , namely, the alleged right 
or duty of a state to punish a citizen for an offence committed without its 
territory — this is a proposition of municipal, the other is one of international 
law." 

My Lord, then, having cited those authorities for the view that allegiance 
arises from protection, is reciprocal with protection, is a correlative thing, 
I turn to an authority for the proposition that allegiance continues, although 
the right to protection may be in suspense. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 105 

There I rely on the case of De Jagcr v. the Attorney-General 
of Natal , reported in 1 907 Appeal Cases , page 326. In Foster the paragraph 
I cited to your Lordship is an authority for the same proposition. The 
matter dealt with in De Jager's case was this: A resident alien within 
British territory owes allegiance to the Crown , and if he assists invaders 
during the absence of state forces for strategical or other reasons he is rightly 
convicted of high treason. Special leave to appeal from a judgment to that 
effect refused. There is no sufficient authority for the doctrine that the alien's 
duty of allegiance ceases if an enemy makes good his military occupation 
of the district in which the alien resides ." My Lord, at page 328, in the 
course of the judgment of the Divisional Committee, the Lord Chancellor, 
Lord Loreburn, referred to the argument of Sir Robert Finlay, as he then 
was, and he said: 44 Their Lordships are of opinion that there is no ground 
for this contention " — that is, the contention, that when the protection ceases, 
its counterpart ceases — “ Their Lordships are of opinion that there is no 
ground for this contention. The protection of a state does not cease merely 
because the state forces for strategical or other reasons are temporarily 
withdrawn , so that the enemy for the time exercises the rights of an army 
in occupation. On the contrary , when such territory reverts to the control 
of its rightful sovereign , wrongs done during the foreign occupation are 
cognisable by the ordinary courts. The protection of the sovereign has not 
ceased. It is continuous , though the actual redress of what has been done 
amiss may be necessarily postponed until the enemy forces have been expelled. 
Their Lordships consider that the duty of a resident alien is so to act that 
the Crown shall not be harmed by reason of its having admitted him as a 
resident One may add as a corollary to that that he shall not be harmed 
by reason of having been admitted to the protection and to the status 
of a British passport-holder. 

Then Lord Loreburn goes on: “ He is not to take advantage of the 
hospitality extended to him against the sovereign who extended it. In modern 
times great numbers of aliens reside in this and in most other countries and 
in modem usage it is regarded as a hardship if they are compelled to quit , 
as they rarely are , even in the event of war between their own sovereign and 
the country where they so reside. It would be intolerable , and must inevitably 
end in a restriction of the international facilities now universally granted if 
as soon as an enemy made good his military occupation of a particular district , 
those who had till then lived there peacefully as aliens could with impimity 
take up arms for the invaders. A small invading force might thus be swollen 
into a considerable army , while the risks of transport ( which in the case of 
overseas expeditions are the main risks of invasion) would be entirely evaded 
by those who, instead of embarking from their own country , awaited the 
expedition imder the protection of the country against which it was directed 
My Lord, I do not think the rest of the judgment I need read to your 
Lordship. 

There is an American case which I would like to refer your Lordship 
to. That is the case of Carlisle v. the United States , reported in 16 Wallace's 
Reports , 147, a decision of the American Supreme Court. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the date of it ? 

The Attorney-General: 1872. The short point there was that an alien— he 
was a British subject as a matter of fact, if I recall it rightly — was domiciled 
in one of the Confederate States, in one of the areas occupied by the 
Confederate States, during the American Civil War, and he sold saltpetre 
to be used, as he knew, by the Confederate armies in the making of gun- 
powder; and it was held that he was guilty of an offence. The American 
courts seem to have adopted almost exactly the view of the law which had 
already been expressed in the old English books, and Mr. Justice Field 



106 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


in the course of his judgment, at page 154, said: “By allegiance is meant 
the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the 
government under which he lives or to his sovereign in return for the protection 
he receives . It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be 
a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and 
permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign or at least until by some 
open and distinct act he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of 
another government or another sovereign . The alien , while domiciled in 
the country , owes a local and temporary allegiance which continues during 
the period of his residence. This obligation of temporary allegiance by an 
alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognised by publicists 
and statesmen.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Read that passage again, will you ? From “the alien, 
while domiciled.” 

The Attorney-General: “ The alien , while domiciled in the country , owes 
a local and temporary allegiance which continues during the period of his 
residence. This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien residing 
in a friendly country is everywhere recognised by publicists and statesmen. 
In the case of Thrasher , a citizen of the United States resident in Cuba, 
who complained of injuries suffered from the government of that island , 
Mr. Webster , then Secretary of State , made in 1851 a report to the President 
in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives in which he said : 

‘ Every foreigner-bom, residing in a country , owes to that country allegiance 
and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by 
the mere fact of his residence : and by that temporary protection which he 
enjoys is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This 
is the universal understanding in all civilised states , and nowhere a more 
established doctrine than in this country .’ And again: ‘ Independently 
of a residence with intention to continue such residence , independently of any 
domiciliation , independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of 
renouncing any former allegiance , it is well known that by the public law 
an alien or a stranger-bom , for so long a time as he continues within the 
dominions of a foreign government , owes obedience to the laws of that 
government , and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born 
subject might be” Then he goes on to refer to Hale and East and Foster 
and approves the law as there laid down. 

My Lord, that case shows that there — as, in my submission, in this 
country — the view was accepted that the local allegiance, the temporary 
allegiance, of the foreigner continued although the right to protection was 
temporarily in suspense. I rely upon that because it may be said here that 
in time of war the protection afforded to the British passport-holder, 
who was by accident or design in hostile territoiy, came to an end. In 
my submission that is not so : at the highest that it could be put, it would 
be that the protection afforded to the British passport-holder was in suspense. 
As your Lordship knows in a number of respects the protection does continue 
in fact. It is not capable of being exercised to the same extent as may be 
possible in times of peace, but a degree of protection does continue so 
long as civilised countries continue to observe the usages of international 
law and the ordinary diplomatic practices. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: The application for the passport was not confined to 
Germany? 

The Attorney-General: No, my Lord. We have not seen the passport, 
but the passport application referred to most of the Continent— -Belgium, 
France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : So the passport may have been effective if used in some 
of those other countries ? 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


107 


The Attorney-General : Yes, it could have been effective if used in the neutra 
countries ; it could also be used in the belligerent countries to the extent 
that it entitled the holder to the protection and interest of the protecting 
power. It enabled the holder to ensure that he was not called up by the 
belligerent power for military service in its own forces, I should think; 
and it entitled him to whatever rights under the ordinary law of nations 
that particular belligerent power agreed to observe. I cannot say whether 
this rule would be observed in the case of Germany or not, but in point 
of fact the protecting power, Switzerland, did continue to operate through- 
out the war. The fact that it is called the “protecting power” is perhaps 
not without interest, and it leads one to think of the large class of persons 
who are called “protected persons,” not British subjects by birth, not 
British subjects under the statute. I suppose now the largest class of them 
is in Palestine. In my submission, those persons, although not of British 
nationality, enjoying as they do the protection of the Crown, could certainly 
commit treason, although they were absent from Palestine. In that con- 
nection there is perhaps some comparison to be drawn between a personal 
passport and a ship’s passport, which is a somewhat older conception. 
In the case of a ship’s passport, a ship flying a particular flag and with the 
pass of a particular country is not allowed to dispute that it is of the 
nationality of that flag and of that pass. 

A passport itself, in my submission, is an extension into the realm of 
international law and diplomatic practice of the sovereign’s protection, 
and once protection is seen to be the basis of allegiance, then in my sub- 
mission there is no reason at all in principle to limit it to cases where the 
protection arises because of residence. I would invite your Lordship 
to say that it may arise because of birth, it may arise because of an oath 
of allegiance having been taken, it may arise because of some presence in 
territory, and equally it may arise in any other circumstances in which the 
alien concerned voluntarily places himself as a subject under the protection 
of the Crown, including in fact the protective obligations of the Crown. 
The protective responsibilities of the State are in many respects much more 
onerous in the case of a passport-holder than they are in the case of a 
resident alien. In the case of an ordinary resident alien the alien shares 
simply a general protection which is afforded to any resident, the State 
is completely passive, but in the case of a passport-holder the position of 
the State may be active. 

The words in the passport which I mentioned to the jury in making 
the case clear to the jury are not idle words, and they mean that the whole 
of the diplomatic and consular machinery of the State is capable of 
invocation by the passport-holder. The books contain many instances 
of the way in which the State has intervened to protect the rights of its 
subjects, even in time of war. There is the obvious possibility of reprisals 
being undertaken against enemy nationals in this country in the event of 
our nationals or our protected persons in a foreign country being improperly 
treated. There is the further possibility — and one sees it in what has 
happened in the course of the war which has just come to an end — of 
satisfaction being demanded at the end of the war for any wrong done to 
individuals who are British subjects or British-protected people. In 
peacetime the degree of the protection, of course, may be much greater. 
There are the blockade cases. The blockade of Greece was a very notable 
instance of it in 1850 arising out of the Don Pacifico case, where the State 
actively intervened to protect the rights of one of its subjects. A similar 
case occurred against Venezuela in 1902, the Stevenson case. The Crown 
really does assume — and I am not using language of any kind of exagger- 
ation when I say so — grave responsibilities to protect a person to whom 



108 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


it issues a passport; and equally, of course, it may be under grave 
responsibilities to other Powers in respect of the acts of the passport- 
holder abroad. Having issued a passport to a particular person, whether 
a British subject or not 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Are passports issued to people who are not British 
subjects ? 

The Attorney-General: They can be, as I understand, issued to people who 
are not British subjects. I imagine that the ordinary case is the case of 
a British subject, but there is no legal restriction. They have been issued 
to stateless persons, but after the last war the number of stateless persons 
became so large that a new procedure was adopted and in certain circum- 
stances, although again there was no obligation on the Crown in regard 
to it, a special form of passport called the 'Lamp son passport ’ was issued. 
It was in fact no more than a kind of certificate of identity; it entitled the 
holder to no kind of special protection. But, my Lord, where deliberately 
or by mistake or as the result of fraud the Crown has issued a passport to 
a particular person as a British subject, it vouches for him, for his nation- 
ality and indeed for his respectability, and the Crown may be involved 
in exactly the same kind of diplomatic representations that it would make 
itself if a foreigner in this country misbehaved himself, in the event of that 
passport-holder in a foreign country misbehaving himself and doing acts 
which resulted in state intervention. 

There is only one case of any real interest on passports. There is another 
case, and an earlier case, which I ought to mention to your Lordship. 
I have not, I think, got it by me, but I can tell your Lordship quite shortly 
what the effect of it was. It was a criminal case in which neither the 
argument nor the judgment were reported, but it was a criminal case in 
which it was sought to prove foreign nationality by production of a United 
States passport. The passport was produced ; and it was sought, I think, 
to put an American lawyer into the witness-box to say that passports 
would only be issued by the United States of America to American-born 
subjects. It was held that the evidence was inadmissible. There would 
be many arguments in that case which would not affect this case in the 
slightest degree. The fact that the United States issued a passport to a 
person who was not an American subject would not exclude the possibility 
that that person was subject to the laws of England or some other country. 
It may be that it was disputed on the ground that there was no identification 
in that case of the person to whom the United States of America had 
issued the passport. That is all that case said, and it does not, in my 
submission, afford any assistance here either one way or the other. 

A case of some interest is that of Brailsford reported in 1905, King's 
Bench Reports , page 730. 1 That is a case where there was an indictment 
against two defendants for a conspiracy, and it was alleged that the defend- 
ants had unlawfully conspired together to obtain a passport in the name 
of one of the defendants by falsely pretending that the defendant desired 
to use the passport himself while travelling in Russia, but in fact intended 
that the passport should be used by another person. They were indicted for 
that offence as an offence which was one to the public mischief and endanger- 
ing the continuance of the peaceful relations between the King and the Tsar 
and their subjects respectively. It is a little interesting to observe the words 
of the indictment there, because, to the extent that they go, they appear 

*In this case two Britons, Brailsford and McCulloch, conspired to obtain a passport 
in the latter's name in order that it should be used by a Russian revolutionary, in whose 
possession it was found in St. Petersburg after he had been killed by a bomb explosion. 
This was one of the present Lord Simon’s very early cases : he appeared for the defendants, 
led by Sir Robert Reid, K.C., who later, as Lord Loreburn, became Lord Chancellor. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


109 


to afford some support for the view which I just put to your Lordship, 
that this country is under a measure of responsibility to foreign countries 
in respect of the acts of those persons to whom it may issue passports. 
That is exactly the form of the indictment there, “to the endangerment 
of the continuance of the peaceful relations between the King and the 
Tsar.” 

At page 741, in the course of his summing-up to the jury, the Lord 
Chief Justice states this : “ You have a copy of the passport before you and 
I need not read it . You would know , even if you had not seen the copy 
passport , that it is a representation by the highest official of the British 
Empire , namely , the Foreign Minister , a requisition in the name of His Majesty 
to all concerned to allow Mr. Arthur Henry Muir McCulloch to pass freely 
without let or hindrance , and to afford him every assistance and protection 
of which he may stand in need. That is not a document which anybody , 
according to the law of England ', is entitled to take or use unless he is Mr. 
Arthur Henry Muir McCulloch. In obtaining that document, if they obtained 
it with the knowledge that Mr. Arthur Henry Muir McCulloch was not going 
to use it, I tell you they were obtaining from the public authority a document 
which would be of public importance and be used by the bearer for the purpose 
of his national protection , and in getting that and allowing it to he used by 
other people , if you are satisfied upon the evidence that they did so, they 
were carrying out acts which were injurious to the public, in that a public 
officer was asked to issue to one man a document which they knew was going 
to be used by another 

Then, my Lord, the matter went to appeal and at the bottom of page 
744 this passage appears : “ We are clearly of opinion that the count is good, 
and that the conviction must stand, but in deference to the arguments of Sir 
Robert Reid, and as the point has never arisen directly before, we think it 
right to state the reasons for our decision . It is not necessary for us to decide 
whether, apart from conspiracy, the obtaining of a passport by false pretences, 
(namely, by alleging that it was required for the use and protection of A.B. 
whereas it is in fact intended to be used by some third person not known or 
recommended by the Foreign Office) is of itself a misdemeanour, but as the 
question has some bearing upon the validity of the conviction on the first 
count, we desire to make a few observations thereon. It will be well to consider 
what a passport really is. It is a document issued in the name of the sovereign 
on the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown to a named individual, 
intended to be presented to the governments of foreign nations and to be used 
for that individuaVs protection as a British subject in foreign countries , and 
it depends for its validity upon the fact that the Foreign Office in an official 
document vouches the respectability of the person named. Passports have 
been known and recognised as official documents for more than three 
centuries and in the event of war breaking out may become documents which 
may be necessary for the protection of the bearer , if the subject of a neutral 
state, as against the officials of the belligerents, and in time of peace in some 
countries, as in Russia, they are required to be carried by all travellers 

My Lord, at that time the passport system was very much in its infancy 
and passports were not usually required for foreign travel in time of peace. 

Mr, Justice Tucker : Have you any idea for what time they have existed ? 

The Attorney-General: I have not been able to ascertain how long they 
have existed in anything like their present form. They seem to have 
originated in the form of passes given by the sovereign of one state per- 
mitting the passage through his state of foreign subjects : in other words, 
they were not issued by the subject's sovereign but by the opposite sover- 
eign. I have been unable to ascertain when the name was given to what 



110 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


is in effect a certificate of identity which is accepted with or without the 
visa by the foreign power and on which the holder of it is allowed to pass 
through the foreign country. 

The judgment goes on : ‘7/ is not necessary to do more than to remember 
certain incidents in the nineteenth century to see what grave international 
questions might arise in the event of a person holding a passport receiving 
ill-treatment in a foreign country. It cannot , of course ; be maintained that 
every fraud and cheat constitutes an offence against the criminal law , but the 
distinction between acts which are merely improper or immoral and those 
which tend to produce a public mischief has long been recognised” 

And then it goes on to discuss the law in regard to public mischief. 
My Lord, there are other passages in books on international law on the 
manner in which the protection of the state is exercised for its subjects 
in foreign countries, but I do not think at this stage of this case they would 
be of assistance to your Lordship, and I do not know of any other authority 
which is directly in point. 

My submission, summing it all up is 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Before you do that You have emphasised the pro- 

tection aspect of the passport as such, but may it not be that the allegiance 
that is said to be local may depend upon the residence of the alien, and if 
that be so, as has been indicated in some of the authorities you have referred 
to, the residence may not cease by reason of a merely temporary absence 
from the realm ? Supposing, during the recent war, before Italy came into 
the war, an Italian subject had contrived somehow to have got out of this 
country for twenty-four hours and to have adhered to the enemy by some 
act during that twenty-four hours and then returned to this country ; would 
he not still be guilty of treason based upon presence here, although the' 
act was physically committed outside the country ? 

The Attorney-General : I would respectfully submit certainly so. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : If that is so, may not in some cases the holding of a 
passport for a limited period in itself indicate that the departure is for a 
limited period and not for a permanent period ? 

The Attorney-General: I would respectfully submit that that is so. The 
passport is an indication that the person while leaving the country is still 
remaining tied to the country and has the intention to return. The form 
of the application is that it is expressed to be for “a holiday tour,” and there 
is in the application itself every indication, in my submission, that the 
passport-holder is applying for facilities to leave this country and to go 
to various countries for a holiday tour with a view to his eventual re- 
admission to this country. That perhaps is one of the most important 
effects of a passport in diplomatic usage. As your Lordship knows, 
there was during that period a number of people wandering about Europe 
who found it difficult to find any State which would accept them as its 
nationals. That was one of the reasons for the present passport system 
between the two wars. One fully accepted that the international conse- 
quence of the issue of a passport by a state is that the state which issues 
the passport will readmit the holder to its own territory ; and so, if that 
holder goes to Belgium, France, Switzerland, Italy or Austria and they do not 
want him to stay, they can deport him with the assurance that this country 
will receive him. Without such a passport they might find themselves 
saddled with an alien whose presence was not wanted and yet find it 
impossible to deport him to some other country because no other country 
would receive him. The passport is not only a certificate of identity, but 
it is an undertaking that the person who holds it will be allowed to return. 

I would invite your Lordship to say that, as in the case quoted in Foster 
and East , the alien who leaves his country but has his family remaining 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 111 

behind him the presence of his family being some evidence as to his intention 
eventually to return, constituting a tie between himself and his country, 
so here the existence of a passport is some evidence of intention to return 
and is some tie between the alien and the state. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Attorney, if that is right, that I think would be a 
question for the jury, would it not — the intention with which the passport 
was taken out and used ? 

The Attorney-General : Yes, my Lord, I think it would. Putting the whole 
thing in a sentence, I would submit on behalf of the Crown that it is unthink- 
able that a person who has apparently been domiciled in this country; 
who has the whole of his family living in this country and who leaves the 
whole of his family, his relatives, his father and mother and sisters and 
brothers with the exception of his wife in this country ; who has secured 
from this country the substantial matter of protection that the issue of a 
passport involves; who has secured the right to return to this country 
at any time as a British subject ; who has declared himself to be a British 
subject; who uses the passport and travels on it as a British subject, even 
perhaps as in this case secures employment on it — it is in my submission 
unthinkable that such a person should not at the corresponding date owe 
allegiance to the Crown. I would ask your Lordship to deal with the 
matter, and I submit it in this way under two heads : that here is a man 
who was resident and indeed domiciled in this country — all the evidence 
goes to show that — and who left it for a period of time for a purely temporary 
purpose, retaining the tie of his passport and some family relationship ; 
and secondly, on the basis that here was a man who quite independently 
of any continuing residence of that kind was under a duty of allegiance 

„ because of the protection of the Crown with which he clothed himself. 

^vIr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Attorney, with regard to count 3, with regard to 
the other side of the picture, the only overt act laid under count 3 is the 
broadcasting, the evidence of the witness who said he heard a voice which 
he identified as that of the prisoner, saying that Folkestone and Dover 
had been destroyed, is it not ? 

The Attorney-General: There is the contract, my Lord 

Mr. Justice Tucker : The contract was dated much later. 

The Attorney-General : Yes, my Lord, the contract itself referred to a later 
period, I respectfully agree — the Work Book, possibly the award, although 
I do not think I can place much reliance upon that. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the date of the award ? 

The Attorney-General: 1944. There is the Work Book and his statement. 
The Work Book gives the 18th September as the date on which he entered 
into the employment of the Broadcasting Corporation. Hunt did say 
in his evidence, I think, as I am reminded, that, although that was the only 
occasion when he remembered actually what the man had said, he heard 
him on a number of occasions before he came back to London on the 
11th December. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: The date of employment was the 18th September it 
would seem. Yes, Mr. Slade ? 

Mr. SLAjpE : In my submission to your Lordship, an alien only owes allegiance 
to His Majesty the King so long as he is resident within the King’s dominions. 

The whole of the authorities cited by the Attorney-General go to prove 
that fact, with one possible exception. The only exception that I have been 
able to find is the statement which appears in East's Pleas of the Crown 
and in Foster's Crown Law. I have been unable to trade it down, and it 
is difficult to say from the somewhat meagre reports whether or not it is 
obiter . May I commence, as the Attorney-General did, putting the cases 
which he said were against him ? May I commence by putting the only 



112 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


statement of the law which, in my respectful submission, can possibly 
be said to be contrary to the submission which I have just put to your 
Lordship, namely, in a word, that a non-resident alien, if I may use that 
convenient expression, knows no duty of allegiance ? Will your Lordship 
look again at Foster's Crown Cases . My friend quoted from page 185; 
may I ask your Lordship to look at page 183, Section 1 ? “With regard 
to natural-bom subjects there can be no doubt . They owe allegiance to the 
Crown at all times and in all places. That is what we call natural allegiance 
in contradistinction to that which is local. The duty of allegiance , whether 
natural or local, is founded in the relation the person standeth in to the Crown 
and in the privileges he deriveth from that relation. Local allegiance is 
founded in the protection a foreigner enjoyeth for his person , his family or 
effects during his residence here , and it ceaseth whenever he withdraweth 
with his family and effects " 

Turning to page 185, Section 4, where the theory submitted is expounded, 
Foster says this: “ And if such alien seeking the protection of the Crown 
and having a family and effects here should during a war with his native 
country " — the evidence here is that Joyce left in August, 1939 — “go thither 
and there adhere to the King's enemies for purposes of hostility , he might 
be dealt with as a traitor . For he came and settled here under the protection 
of the Crown , and, though his person was removed for a time, his 
effects and family continued still under the same protection . This rule was 
laid down by all the Judges assembled at the Queen's command, January 
12 th 1707.” Your Lordship sees a reference to manuscripts, Tracy, Price, 
Dod and Denton. Then he goes on : “It is to be observed that the Judges 
in the resolution last cited laid a considerable stress on the Queen's declaration 
of war against France and Spain, whereby she took into her protection the 
persons and estates of the subjects of those Crowns residing here and demean- 
ing themselves dutifully and not corresponding with the enemy. King 
William and Queen Mary did the same in their declaration of war against 
France, and so did his present Majesty. These declarations did in fact 
put Frenchmen residing here and demeaning themselves dutifully, even in 
time of war , upon the foot of aliens coming hither by licence of safe-conduct. 
They enabled them to acquire personal chattels and to maintain actions for 
the recovery of their personal rights in as full a manner as aliens amy may. 
But as I said before all aliens enemy residing here under the protection of 
the Crown, though possibly not favoured as the persons last mentioned, yet 
they in case they commit crimes which in a subject would amount to treason 
may be dealt with as traitors. For their persons are under the protection 
of the law, and in consequence of that protection they owe a local temporary 
allegiance to the Crown." It is the protection of the law which counts. 

Looking at the same reference in East's Pleas of the Crown again, 
I would like to start a little bit earlier, at volume 1, page 52. I think my 
friend started reading at the foot of page 52. I need not read earlier. 
I want to read a little later: “Local allegiance is that which is due from a 
foreigner during his residence here, and is founded in the protection he enjoys 
for Ids own person, his family and effects during the time of that residence. 
This allegiance ceases whenever he withdraws with his family and effects" 
— The argument of the Attorney-General for the moment is, leaving out 
the family and effects, that this allegiance ceases whenever he withdraws 
his family and effects, and provided he has no animus revertendP — those 
are the words which the Attorney-General is asking your Lordship to read 
into that for the moment — “for his temporary protection being then at an 
end, the duty arising from it also determines. But if he only go abroad 

Untentron of returning. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


113 


himself, leaving his family and effects here under the same protection, the 
duty still continues , and if he commit treason he tnay be punished as a traitor : 
and this whether his own sovereign be at enmity or at peace with ours. There - 
fore, if he aid even his own countrymen in acts or purposes of hostility while 
he is resident here , he may be dealt with in the same manner. The above 
rule was laid down by all the Judges assembled at the Queen's command 
on the \2th January , 1707.” 

Your Lordship will see it is not easy to see what the rule was which was 
laid down in 1707 by all the Judges. On a strict grammatical reading it is 
different in East from the way it is put in Foster . The rule which is laid down 
according to East is, and I will read it again : “ Therefore , if he aid even his 
own countrymen in acts or purposes of hostility while he is resident here , he 
may be dealt with in the same manner. The above rule was laid down by all 
the Judges assembled .” It may be possible to read into both, including 
the six or seven lines which immediately precede, “ Therefore if he aid even 
his own countrymen in acts or purposes of hostility while he is resident here." 
If that is the case it would be quite impossible to say whether the rule 
was laid down in any particular case or whether it was purely obiter : 
but in my submission the grammatical construction is that it only applies 
to the words “ while he is resident here " : and that is in consonance with 
the whole of the authorities on the point. ”7/ has indeed been observed 
that the Judges in that resolution laid considerable stress on the Queen's 
declaration of war against France and Spain , in which she expressly took 
under her protection the persons and estates of the subjects of those crowns 
residing here and demeaning themselves dutifully and not corresponding with 
the enemy y for by that declaratiotiy say they, those aliens were put upon the 
foot of aliens coming here by licence or safe-conduct .” I take this to mean 
that by that declaration Her Majesty the Queen — I suppose it would be 
Queen Anne — was putting enemy aliens upon the same footing as aliens 
amy, because she was putting them upon the same footing as aliens coming 
here by licence. "Yet I cannot think that this circumstance essentially 
altered the case, for the mere fact of being domiciled here does in itself 
imply an allegiance ami an engagement to be true and faithful to the govern- 
ment by which such domicile is protected , and at any rate that the party 
shall not take advantage of this indulgence to prejudice the state more easily 
and effectually . This latter I take to be the true ground upon which an 
alien enemy , domiciled in this country , may in sound reason and justice be 
dealt with as a traitor for aiding or advising his own countrymen in acts of 
hostility .” The ground upon which East puts it is that certainly an alien 
enemy should not be put in a better position by being allowed to come and 
remain over here while the sovereign is at war, than any other person would 
be for the purpose of doing injury to the state. As your Lordship sees, 
he says “ Yet I cannot think that this circumstance essentially altered the 
case ” — that was the circumstance, I imagine, that he had temporarily gone 
during the war, leaving his family here which the Queen had taken under 
her protection. 

Then he comes to a different point, unless my friend wants me to read 
any more, a case relating to an ambassador. I will deal with the question 
of a passport when I come to it, but may I say that you do not leave your 
family here when you leave your father here ? You have got no say whether 
your father will stay here or whether he will go elsewhere ; you do not leave 
your family here by leaving your brother who is of age here, or anyone 
else who is sui juris 1 or anyone else over whom you have no control. 
“Your family” means, in my respectful submission, your wife and your 

‘His own (legal) master. 

H 



Ii4 the trial OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

own children, and “effects” means the effects which belong to you and not 
the effects which belong to your father or to your sister or to your brother. 
The evidence, your Lordship will remember, with regard to the wife — there 
is no evidence that there are any children — appears, among other places, 
in the prisoner’s statement. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : The prisoner’s statement may be evidence in so far as it 
contains admissions, but die mere fact that he has stated facts in his 
statement does not prove the truth of those facts. 

Mr. Slade : It does not prove them, but, I respectfully submit, a statement put 
in in those circumstances and including the words “This statement has been 
read over to me and is true,” and being put in by the Prosecution, is some 
evidence. If your Lordship rules against me, then I change my tactics 
and say that there is no evidence given by the Prosecution which is not equally 
satisfying from the point of view of the defence. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: No evidence as to which particular point? 

Mr. Slade : No evidence that Joyce went abroad leaving his wife. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: There is no evidence, as far as I know, that he was ever 
married . 

Mr. Slade: No, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: According to the evidence of the Prosecution, it is true 
he made some reference to the presence of his wife when he was arrested, 
but I do not know when he was married or anything about it, or whether 
he was married in August or September, 1939. 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, there is in the passport application form — 
he is asked whether married or single ; he says “Married.” And then he 
is asked to give his domicile. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes. 

Mr. Slade : Surely, my Lord, if his statement is not evidence, the statement in 
the passport would be evidence. If the statement is evidence — your 
Lordship rules it is not — it deals with the point I want to deal with further. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Slade, surely this is elementary; it is a matter 
we have to deal with in the criminal courts again and again and again. 
A man makes a long statement to a police officer full of details ; that is not 
evidence until he comes into the witness box and swears to the truth of it. 
Statements made by him in an application for a passport could, of course, 
be used as evidence against him. 

Mr. Slade : Your Lordship says it is quite elementary. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Slade, I withdraw that ; I do not think I should have 
said that. I don’t like people using the word “elementary” to me when they 
are making submissions to me, and I should not have used it. 

Mr. Slade : Not at all, my Lord. I do not profess to have profound knowledge 
of criminal law or any law at all. Your Lordship is obviously right and I 
am wrong. May I say in those circumstances I would not dream of 
advancing that argument any further ? May I submit that, in so far as there 
is evidence that he is married, it is contained in the passport and there is 
no evidence that his wife was living here ? Let us get rid of her. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : It is merely a matter indicating that the severance from 
this country must be a final act and not something merely temporary. 

Mr. Slade: I submit to your Lordship that it means this: that, so long as 
you leave your wife and family and your effects under the King’s protection 
— that is to say, you rely upon the King to protect those who are nearest 
and dearest to you and your own effects by being given the help of the law 
to protect those effects — you cannot say, “I will go off and commit treason 
somewhere else, leaving my wife and children over here under the protection 
of your Majesty.” That is how I should put it. If that is so, then a number 
of the dicta of the Law Lords in Johnstone and Pedlar must have been 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


115 


singularly unfortunate and indeed a number of the dicta in all these books, 
which seem to say that it ceases as soon as the alien leaves the country. I 
have referred to the two in which alone any suggestion to the contrary can 
be found. Apart from those two I should have thought that the contrap' 
was almost unarguable, if I had not heard my learned friend arguing it. 
Now I want to give your Lordship, if I may, a collection of instances where 
it is said over and over again — I put it compendiously — that allegiance is 
co-existent only with residence in the case of an alien. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Are you contending that residence means the physical 
presence in this country of the man ? 

Mr. Slade: Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: He must always be physically present in the country 
when he commits a treasonable act ? 

Mr. Slade : Yes. I say the only authority, if it is an authority, to the contrary 
are the two passages which I have read. I think I am right in saying that 
not one single authority has been quoted, apart from those two passages, 
which suggests anything to the contrary. Passage after passage which he 
has quoted is quite inconsistent with local allegiance applying to a non- 
resident alien. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Even in the case of the Italian which I put to you ? 

Mr. Slade : Would your Lordship put the case of the Italian to me again ? 
I would like to be careful before I answer the question. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: An Italian before we were at war with Italy who had 
been resident in this country for a number of years and as such owed 
allegiance, managed to get out of this country and do some act of adherence 
to the Germans and got back again twenty-four hours later. 

Mr. Slade : Then I should say he was not triable for treason. He would not 
be an enemy alien at the moment he went out, and I say he would not 
commit the offence of treason, whatever other offence he might commit, 
and I say that the Treachery Act of 1940 was passed for the express purpose 
of bringing those persons within the ambit of the criminal law. 1 I told your 
Lordship I would give you a reference, if I may, because there are several 
more than Johnstone and Pedlar. I think there are more than my learned 
friend mentioned. Before I cite them may I add this ? My learned friend 
the Attorney-General kept on saying to your Lordship something to this 
effect in the course of his submission — I took it down. After citing 
Coke's Institutes he said, “Not only who is resident here, but who receives 
protection.” After quoting Hale's Pleas of the Crown he said, “Something 
more is required than the mere presence of the alien here if he enjoys the 
benefits of the King’s protection” — something more ! May I respectfully 
agree with that argument, to this extent at least, that whatever more may 
be required, if anything, the sine qua non is residence here ? And may I 
furthermore say that I shall elaborate this argument when I come to the 
passport ? 

International law — if there is such a thing as international law ? which 
I do not for one moment admit — has nothing whatever to do with this case. 
Allegiance depends upon the municipal law of this country, that is to say, 
the constitutional law of this country. There was no sanction attached 
to international laws, as we have noticed in the last two wars of this country. 

May I take Johnstone and Pedlar first of all ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes, do. 

Mr. Slade: Johnstone and Pedlar is in 1921, 2 Appeal Cases , 262. Your 
Lordship has some idea of the facts. May I point out what happened ? 

‘This was the Act in respect of which the second indictment had been drafted against 

Joyce. 



116 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


The plaintiff in that case, I think, was a naturalised American citizen, as 
in this case. He had come over to Ireland, as it then was, and taken part 
in treasonable activities by illegal drilling. He brought an action of tort 
to recover certain property of which he had been deprived, and the Defence 
which was put up was, in substance, that the money was withheld from him 
on the authority of the Government and was an act of State. Your 
Lordship knows, of course, that you cannot have an act of State against 
a British subject, and I think this case held that you could not also have 
an act of State against an alien amy while resident in this country. The 
argument put up for the Defence (but not, I think, raised in the pleadings) 
was that whatever right an alien amy might have had by his residence within 
the King’s dominions he had forfeited by reason of his treasonable activities. 
Therefore this case is important upon two aspects of the present case. If 
there is anything in the argument of my friend about the passport, which 
I will deal with in due course, I shall say that whatever protection was 
afforded to Joyce by the British passport, he must lose the right to it the 
moment he did, as the Prosecution allege that he did, start treasonable 
activities. That point was left undecided in Johnstone and Pedlar. In 
the speech of Lord Finlay commencing with the last line on page 272, 
your Lordship will see: “The plaintiff is not a subject of the British Crown , 
hut he was at the time of his arrest within British territory. It was contended 
for him that he must be treated for the purposes of the present case as a British 
subject , inasmuch as he was at the time resident in Ireland. Hale , in his 
Pleas of the Crown , after discussing a statute of Henry VIII , giving to 
any of the King's subjects whose goods have been taken away the right to a 
writ of restitution on conviction of the thief says , ‘ Though the statute speak 
of the King's subjects , it extends to aliens robbed : for , though they are not 
the King's natural-born subjects , they are the King's subjects when in England 
by a local allegiance.' The subject of a state at peace with His Majesty , 
while permitted to reside in this country , is under the King's protection and 
allegiance and may be convicted of high treason in respect of acts 
committed here ” 

My Lord, Lord Finlay is quite clearly, in my respectful submission, 
saying here that, while permitted to reside in this country, he is under the 
King’s protection and allegiance and may be convicted of high treason 
in respect of acts committed here. He could not commit acts here if he 
were out of the jurisdiction. “The proposition put forward on behalf of 
the appellant was that residence in this country does not put an alien in the 
same position as a British subject in respect of acts of State of the Government 
and does not entitle him to bring an action against a tortfeasor whose act 
has been ordered or adopted by the Government. I am quite unable to accept 
this proposition as a correct statement of our law. On such a view of the 
law , aliens in this country , instead of having the protection of British law 9 
would be at the mercy of any department entitled to use the name of the Crown 
for an act of State. It would have effects upon aliens in this country of a 
far-reaching nature as to person and property. If an alien be wrongfully 
arrested , even by order of the Crown , it cannot be doubted that a writ of 
habeas corpus is open to him y and it would be surprising if he has not the right 
to recover damages from the person who has wrongfully imprisoned him. 
He has corresponding rights as regards his property . / am unable to find 
any ground either of principle or of authority for a proposition so sweeping , 
which would profoundly modify the position in this country of many aliens 
whose conduct while resident here has been quite without reproach. But it 
does not necessarily follow that an alien who abuses for treasonable purposes 
the permission of the Crown to reside in this country will still be at liberty 
to claim the rights of a British subject as against the servants of the Crown 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


117 


who have carried out any act of State affecting him or his property . While 
he is in this country the alien as a matter of law is in the allegiance of the 
Crown , and he cannot get rid of this local allegiance so as to acquire while 
here any immunity for crimes committed against the State . But it would be 
a somewhat startling proposition that an alien who is engaged in acts of 
rebellion can claim as against the Crown or its agents that he enjoys the 
immunity of a British subject in respect of acts of State. While repudiating 
all the obligations , can he retain as between himself and the Crown all the 
benefits attaching to the status of a British subject ? One who is by birth 
or by naturalisation a British subject and commits treason still , of course , 
remains for all purposes a British subject and must be treated as such in every 
respect ; but the alien in this country remains an alien still \ although for the 
time also a British subject in virtue of local allegiance. If he be guilty of 
a treasonable act , can he be permitted to assert for his own benefit against 
the servants of the Crown the status of a subject of the Government which he 
is endeavouring to subvert? Prima facie the subject of a state at peace 
with His Majesty , while a resident in this country , is entitled to the protection 
accorded to British subjects." 

May I now invite your Lordship’s attention to Lord Cave at page 275, 
the second paragraph ? “ When a wrong has been done by the King's officer 

to a British subject , the person wronged has no legal remedy against the 
sovereign , for the King can do no wrong ; but he may sue the King's officer 
for a tortious act , and the latter cannot plead the authority of the sovereign , 
for from the maxim that the King cannot do wrong it follows as a necessary 
consequence that the King cannot authorise wrong. On the other hand , 
where the person injured is an alien resident abroad , the above rule does not 
apply and , if the act causing the injury is adopted by the sovereign as an act 
of State, the alien is without redress except by diplomatic action taken through 
the government of his own country." I am reading that particular passage 
because in a moment I shall hope to be able to show what my friend’s 
submission will lead to, if it is correct. 

May I, while I am citing that, tell your Lordship what is in my mind ? 
We are concerned here with a British passport which has in fact been 
issued to an American subject. The Crown has no jurisdiction to issue 
British passports to American subjects. Your Lordship was told at some 
stage of this case yesterday the sort of protection that a man owning a 
British passport became entitled to. Let us see, by taking an illustration, 
what sort of protection he would get when ex hypothesi he is an enemy 
subject. Say he goes to Spain and someone in Spain wants to do him an 
injury and he says, “You may not do that to me I shall go and see our 
ambassador in Madrid,” all the time ex hypothesi being an American 
having obtained a British passport. He goes to the ambassador and says, 
“Protect me, this man wants to harm me.” The ambassador says, “You 
must not harm this man ; he is a British subject.” To which the Spaniard 
replies, “Nothing of the kind. That is what he tells you. He is an 
American, and your Crown had no right to issue a passport to an American 
subject.” I can only ask the question rhetorically: What protection does 
your Lordship think that an American would get in those circumstances 
in Spain ? 

Take one more illustration. Ex hypothesi , as I say, Joyce is now an 
American subject. Supposing in August, 1939, when he left Great Britain, 
instead of going to Germany, he had gone to New York, his own country ; 
and supposing America had come into the war against us instead of on our 
side; he would have been liable for service in the American Army. What- 
ever he tried to do, if the passport lasted for a year, and it might have lasted 
for five years — it had an extension for five years — he would commit treason 



118 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


against this country by fighting for his own country! There are other 
absurdities which I will deal with later ; but in my submission, quite apart 
from all these, it is extravagant in the extreme to say that a man who, 
according to the case for the Prosecution, left this country for the express 
purpose of committing acts which would be undoubtedly treasonable, if 
he owed allegiance, only left here temporarily, intending to come back, 
and put his head into the lion’s mouth so that he could be sentenced 
to be hanged. That is the sort of extravagant suggestion, if I may say so, 
which is being put forward in this case. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Arejthey not questions for the jury, in so far as it becomes 
a question for the jury ? You say ‘a man who left for the purpose of 
committing treasonable activities.’ I do not know whether that was so 
or not. I do not know what was in his mind when he left in August, 
1939, if indeed he did leave in August. I do not know whether there is 
any evidence when he left. His application for the passport was in August, 
I think, but I do not know whether there is any evidence when he left. 

Mr. Slade: I think the evidence is the second renewal in August, 1939. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : In making submissions to me, when you tell me that he 
left in August with the deliberate purpose of treasonable activities, I have 
no evidence of that. 

Mr. Slade : I hope I am not trying to address your Lordship upon any matter 
which is for the jury. I will deal with the question later with the jury, 
if there is any evidence at all ; whether there is any evidence at all is a 
matter for your Lordship. I will only for the moment put the reductio 
ad absurdum which I shall put later on to show the sort of consequence 
which would emerge if the Attorney-General is right in his submission. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : I don’t want to say anything which would embarrass 
you at this stage, but, when we are dealing with this kind of subject, when 
you talk about coming back to the country and putting his head in a noose, 
it might depend on whether we won the peace or not or whether there had 
been an early peace. All kinds of things may have been in the minds of 
people in August, 1 939. 

Mr. Slade : I respectfully agree. He would only come back if there were an 
early peace which resulted in a victory for Germany. I merely cite the words 
“the King cannot authorise wrong.’’ His Majesty the King would not 
dream of authorising the issue of a British passport to an American citizen. 
The only way it is done in this case is because the Foreign Office was deceived 
by the misstatements made in the form of application. “J But there is a 
third case , namely , where the person aggrieved is an alien and resident here , 
and l think that it is the established law that such a case falls within the 
first and not within the second of the abo ve categories. ’ ’ My Lord, I am read- 
ing this because I think it may assist your Lordship to know how, in my 
submission, the law in regard to aliens amy came to be established. At 
one time they had absolutely no rights whatever. Their rights started by 
being purely civil rights. They could not protect their property. ‘7/ was 
laidxlown by Littleton that an alien could bring no action real or personal , 
but as regards an alien ami this proposition was disputed by Coke who said , 
*Jn this case the law doth distinguish between an alien that is a subject to one 
that is an enemy to the King and one that is subject to one that is in league 
with the King , and true it is that an alien enemy shall maintain neither real 
nor personal action , donee terrae fuerint communes — that is, until both 
nations be in peace — but an alien that is in league shall maintain personal 
actions ; for an alien may trade and traffic , buy and sell , and therefore of 
necessity he must be of ability to have personal actions, but he cannot maintain 
either real or mixed actions."' So Coke was in disagreement there. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


119 


“ Certainly Littleton's rule was not recognised by the Law-Merchant or in 
Chancery , and before the end of the sixteenth century it was established that 
at Common Law an alien friend could own chattels and sue on a contract or 
in tort in the same manner as a British subject . No doubt a friendly alien 
is not for all purposes in the position of a British subject . For instance, he 
may be prevented from landing on British soil without reason given ; and, 
having landed, he may be deported, at least if a statute authorises his expulsion . 
But so long as he remains in this country with the permission of the sovereign , 
express or implied, he is a subject by local allegiance with a subject's rights 
and obligations ." Lord Cave there, in my respectful submission, is clearly 
saying — my friend said “reciprocal”; I accept that word, but I prefer to 
say “the duty of allegiance,” if you like — the alien had no status at all. 
Gradually the law evolved so as to give him rights to maintain personal 
actions, to have, in other words, the same benefit of the laws of this country 
that a British subject had ; and the corollary to that was that the allegiance 
and the laws of this country only apply in this country and in the British 
dominions and they cease to apply when you go out of the King’s dominions, 
and the correlation between allegiance and protection is the protection 
afforded by the laws of this country as administered by the Crown. At 
any rate Lord Cave said quite clearly that, so long as he remained in this 
country, there is a local allegiance. I don’t think I need read anymore 
from Lord Cave. 

The next opinion is the opinion of Lord Atkinson at page 283, the 
last line: “A friendly alien resident in this country can undoubtedly be prose- 
cuted for high treason ” — De Jager's case — “ because it can then be averree 
that he acted contra ligentiae suae debitum; Calvin's case. For the samd 
reason an alien enemy can be prosecuted for high treason if he has accepted 
the protection of the sovereign, but not otherwise. ’ ’ ‘ ‘Accepted the protection 
of the sovereign” must mean in that context, “Accepted the protection 
of the sovereign by becoming resident in this country.” That is what it 
means for the same reason. Curiously enough Lord Atkinson cites a 
passage in Foster. 

The next passage in Lord Sumner’s speech which my friend read is 
at page 292 — I want to read as little as I possibly can — “ The matter which 
he had in hand is the contrast between ligentia localis which begins no 
earlier than " — my Lord, I do emphasise these words — “ and continues no 
longer than the presence of the alien amy within the realm ” — Your Lordship 
asked me whether I meant physical presence and I said yes; there is no 
distinction between physical presence and presence, as Lord Sumner 
says — “No earlier than and continues no longer than the presence of the alien 
ami within the realm." If that is right, in my respectful submission the 
whole of the case for the Crown goes. If the case for the Crown is right, 
then Lord Sumner is wrong. 

Then finally on this case Lord Phillimore, at page 297, in the third 
paragraph, says, “ From the moment of his entry into the country the alien 
owes allegiance to the King till he departs from it." It does not say till 
he departs from it either with or without intention to return. Allegiance, 
subject to a possible qualification which I shall mention, draws with it 
protection just as protection draws allegiance. If the Crown is right, 
then Lord Phillimore is wrong. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes, subject always to this, Mr. Slade. A statement 
of the law has always got to be looked at having regard to the particular 
subject-matter which was under discussion in any particular case. I am 
not saying in the least that you are wrong, but in case after case emphasis, 
pf course, is laid on residence and so forth. The whole question is whether 



120 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


in every case where those words are used they are necessarily given an 
exhaustive examination. You say either the Crown is wrong or Lord 
Phillimore is wrong. 

Mr. Slade: I am not suggesting for one minute that any of these passages 
are part of the ratio decidendi in this case. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : No, you are saying it is not an exhaustive examination. 

Mr. Slade : I am not saying it is exhaustive, and it is open, of course, to the 
perfectly fair comment that none of their Lordships' minds was specifically 
directed to that point. That I agree. No doubt Lav/ Lords make state- 
ments which go beyond the requirements of the occasion when their 
minds are not directed to that point, but there is a remarkable uniformity, 
if they are mistakes, in this case. Of course, I am suggesting they are not 
mistakes and they err in good company because they err with Blackstone 
and Hale and other writers whom I shall mention to your Lordship in a 
moment. The next are Lord Justice Cockburn and, I think, Baron 
Bramwell. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: We will adjourn now. 


THIRD DAY.— Wednesday, 19th September, 1945. 


The Attorney-General: Before my learned friend resumes his argument I 
have an application which I wish to make to your Lordship with regard 
to counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. I have had an opportunity of con- 
sidering the matter with my learned friends during the adjournment, and 
I would ask your Lordship’s leave to amend counts 1 and 2 by inserting 
the words “being a British subject ,” in substitution for the words “being 
a person owing allegiance to the Crown.” 

I think that would help to clarify the position on the record, and it 
would make it clear that in respect of the first two counts we had relied 
on the defendant’s duty of allegiance as a British subject. As the matter 
stands the arguments which I have addressed to your Lordship on count 3 
would be applicable to count 1, at all events up to the date of the expiration 
of the passport. If we amended the first two counts in that way, it would 
be quite clear in relation to anything which can be left to the jury that the 
first two counts are dealing with the matter on the basis of British nationality, 
and I shall of course invite the jury to find, and your Lordship will direct 
them, that the evidence is the other way. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Slade, have you any objection to that ? 

Mr. Slade: I confess I have no objection at all, but as I could not consent 
to any amendment of that kind, I would prefer to leave it to your Lordship’s 
discretion. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Do you mean you have no wish? 

Mr. Slade: That looks as though I was being ungracious. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: No, no, I only want to understand. 

Mr. Slade : To put it quite frankly, the point was mentioned to me two minutes 
ago. I am not complaining about that at all and, of course, quite candidly 
I have not had the opportunity of seeing any possible repercussions which 
might result. That is all. I have received so much assistance from the 
Prosecution that I would not appear to be ungracious, and I put it that way. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: I only wish to understand. 

Mr. Slade : Your Lordship appreciates the nature of the case I have to defend. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Certainly. 

Mr. Slade: I don’t want it to be said in any way that I have actually consented 
to that. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


121 


Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes. I think it is a proper amendment to be made and, 
so far as I can see, I think it is one that is likely to be of assistance to the 
Defence rather than the reverse. Let the amendment be made. 

The Clerk of the Court : May I have that definitely ? It is inserting “being 
a British subject” instead of “a person owing allegiance to our Lord the 
King” ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker: No, not instead of “owing allegiance.” 

The Attorney-General: “To wit, being a British subject owing allegiance 
to our Lord the King.” 

The Clerk of the Court: Instead of the word “person” you want the words 
“British subject” ? 

The Attorney-General: Yes. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes, Mr. Slade ? 

Mr. Slade : Your Lordship may remember that on page 1 85 of Foster's Crown 
Law the reference to the resolution of all the Judges of January 12th 1707, 
contains a marginal note which I read as “ Manuscripts , Tracy , Price , 
Dod and Denton I have been puzzled to know what that referred to 
and I have not succeeded at the moment. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Are you referring to East ? 

Mr. Slade: Page 185 of Foster's Crown Law. There are three editions, but 
they are all the same pagination. Your Lordship sees “ Tracy , Price, Dod 
and Denton .” 1 have not been able to find that, at any rate so far, but 
from my researches last evening I think the explanation may be this, and for 
the information I am going to give to your Lordship I am indebted to an 
article entitled “The Parliamentary Declaration of Treason,” written by 
Professor Samuel Rezneck in 46 Law Quarterly Review , which I am having 
sent for. Apparently it was the practice shortly after the Restoration 
for the Judges to hold conferences before a trial or a body of trials for 
attainder of treason was held. Usually they were accompanied by the 
counsel for the Crown, and they thereupon laid down the law without 
hearing any argument upon it, except possibly from counsel for the Crown, 
and the article 1 am referring to recites that Sir Mathew Hale himself attended 
one of those conferences in 1675, and the article also recites what Sir 
Mathew Hale had to say about that practice. I leave it there. I only 
mention it so that your Lordship may notice the differentiation between 
the word “might” which appeared in one and I think the word “may” 
which appeared in the other. I mention that because of any weight which 
might otherwise be attached to that resolution of the Judges. That is 
only surmise. 

Perhaps I may refer your Lordship now to Sir William Blackstone 
from whom I cited passages from the Law Lords’ opinions in Johnstone 
and Pedlar. I said that it would be a fair comment that their Lordships’ 
minds in making those statements were not directed towards the particular 
point with which your Lordship has to deal. The same certainly cannot 
be attributed to Sir William Blackstone and, if Sir William Blackstone is 
right, then the Crown is wrong. In volume 1, page 370, his language 
admits of no possible misunderstanding. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Mr. Attorney, will you lend me your Blackstone ? 

Mr. Slade : Your Lordship will see it is in Book 1 at page 370. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes. 

Mr. Slade : “ Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien or stranger-born 
for so long time as he continues within the King's dominions and protection , 
and it ceases the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom 
to another." I would ask your Lordship to bear that in mind in connection 
with the illustration of the Italian. “ Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual 
$nd local temporary only , and that for this reason evidently founded upon the 



Mr. Justice Tucker : That would, of course, depend upon the statute which 
creates the offence. 

Mr. Slade: I shall call your Lordship's attention to The Queen v. Jameson 
and to the statute creating the offence. In 1707 certainly this was the law, 
if Sir William Blackstone is right. The Treason Act which is material 
to the point is the Treason Act of 1 543, which 1 shall deal with in a moment, 
which had also been passed some one hundred and fifty years before 
1707 and long before this case. I content myself for the moment with 
saying this, that no court in this country has jurisdiction to try any treason 
alleged to have been committed by an alien abroad, and that is the corollary 
to Sir William Blackstone’s insistence that residence in this country is the 
sine qua non. My Lord, I ought to say that in raising that point about 
jurisdiction, which I shall trace out later, 1 am indebted to my friend 
Mr. Burge for very kindly suggesting it to me, and I shall respectfully 
submit in due course that it is a good point and indeed an unanswerable 
point. For the moment I am merely concerned to show your Lordship 
why all these learned authors and learned Judges are so anxious to emphasise 
that residence is so essential when you are dealing with an alien. 

The next case is one to which I think your Lordship has not yet been 
referred, The Queen v. Keyn, 1876, 2 Exchequer Division , 63. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Is there any reference to that case ? What is the date ? 

Mr. Slade : 1 876. It is an extremely long case, and I only propose to read 
two passages, but I will read the headnote because your Lordship will see 
how it turned upon jurisdiction, although this is not one of the cases I 
specifically rely on in relation to jurisdiction: “ The prisoner was indicted 
at the Central Criminal Court for manslaughter. He was a foreigner and 
in command of a foreign ship , passing within three miles of the shore of 
England on a vovage to a foreign port , and whilst within that distance his 
ship ran into a British ship and sunk her , whereby a passenger on board the 
latter ship was drowned. The facts of the case were such as to amount 
to manslaughter by English law. Held , by the majority of the Court ” 
— Chief Justice Cockbum, Chief Baron Kelly, and so on; there was a 
number of dissenting opinions, as your Lordship sees. Lord Coleridge, 
Mr. Justice Brett, and so on — “ that the Central Criminal Court had no 
jurisdiction to try the prisoner for the offence charged . By the whole of the 
majority of the Court on the ground that , prior to 28 Henry VII f c.15, the 
admiral had no jurisdiction to try offences by foreigners on board foreign 
ships y whether within or without the limit of three miles from the shore of 
England; that that and the consequent statutes only transferred to the 



123 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Common Law courts and the Central Criminal Court the jurisdiction formerly 
possessed by the admiral , and that therefore in the absence of statutory en- 
actment the Central Criminal Court had no power to try such an offence. 

On page 150, in the last paragraph but one of the judgment of Baron 
Bramwell, who of course was one of the majority, he says, “ There is another 
remark 1 wish to make on this head . As a rule where the sovereign has 
jurisdiction there is allegiance , permanent , as subject or citizen : or temporary ; 
as being within the territory . In such case there is a corresponding duty of 
protection. Do any of those exist in this case ?” It is put more strongly 
by Chief Justice Cockbum at page 236 : “ But in order to render a foreigner 
liable to the local law , he must at the time the offence was committed have 
been within British territory if on land or in a British ship at sea. I cannot 
think that if two ships of different nations met on the ocean and a person on 
board of one of them were killed or wounded by a shot fired from the other , 
the person firing it would be amenable to the law of the ship in which the 
shot took effect. According to the doctrine of Lord Coke in Calvin's case 
protection is afforded by the law that the obligation of obedience to the law 
arises : or, as I prefer to put it, it is only for acts done when the person 
doing them is within the area over which the authority of British law extends 
that the subject of a foreign state owes obedience to that law or can be made 
amenable to its jurisdiction I would like to read on a little : “But for 
the opinion expressed by my brother Denman, I should have thought it beyond 
all dispute that a foreign ship, when not in British waters, but on the high seas, 
was not subject to our laws. Upon this point I had deemed all jurists 
unanimous and could not have supposed that a doubt exist . Upon what is 
the contrary opinion founded? Simply upon expediency which is to prevail 
over principle. What, it is asked, is to happen if one of your officers, enforcing 
your revenue laws, should be killed or injured by a foreigner on board a 
foreign ship ? What is to happen if a British and foreign ship meeting on the 
ocean, a British subject should be killed by a shot fired from the foreign 
ship ? In either of such cases would not the foreigner guilty of the offence 
be amenable to the English law ? Could it be endured that he should escape 
with impunity ? If brought within the reach of a British court of justice, 
could he not be tried and punished for the offence and ought he to be permitted 
to escape with impunity or ought he not to be tried and punished for such 
offence ? My first answer is that the alternative is fallacious. He will not 
escape with impunity. He will be amenable to the law of his own country, 
and it is not to be presumed that the law of any civilised people will be such 
or so administered as that such an offence should escape without its adequate 
punishment. As regards the amenability of the offender under such cir- 
cumstances to our law, it will be time enough to determine the question when 
the case arrives. If the conviction and punishment of the offender can only 

be obtained at the sacrifice of fundamental principles ” Then the Lord 

Chief Justice goes on. 

The next authority that my friend cited is from Coke, volume 3, page 4 
of the Institutes , the last paragraph but one : “And all aliens that are within 
the realm of England and whose sovereigns are in amity with the King of 
England are within the protection of the King and do owe a local obedience 
to the King, are homes within this act, and if they commit high treason against 
the King they shall be punished as traitors, but otherwise it is of an enemy 
whereof you may read at large” In my respectful submission why Sir 
Edward Coke there is saying “ whose sovereigns are in amity with the King 
of England ” is this: that the Attorney-General in opening the case said 
that any alien who is placed or places himself within the jurisdiction of 
the Crown is amenable to the justice of this country, which indeed is true, 
but if an alien chooses to come over here while his country is at peace 



124 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


and misdemeans himself over here — of course he has only himself to blame 
if lie has a divided allegiance — but supposing an alien comes over here and 
while he is over here his sovereign declares war upon England, he would 
at once, if my friend’s proposition is correct, be placed through no fault 
of his own under the protection of two sovereigns who ex hypothesi are at 
war with each other. That is why, in my respectful submission, Sir 
Edward Coke emphasises the words "'are in amity with the King of England” 
but there again Sir Edward Coke makes it clear that the residence and local 
allegiance are co-extensive only. 

The next authority is, I think, Hale's Pleas of the Crown, page 58. I think 
the passage my friend read was towards the end of page 58 : “ But if an alien , 
the subject of a foreign prince in amity with the King , live here and enjoy 
the benefit of the King's protection and commit a treason , he shall be judged 
and executed as a traitor for he owes a local allegiance .” The words are 
of course ‘7/ve here,” otherwise Hale carries the matter no farther. 

The next case was Calvin s case , and 1 shall have to read a little bit 
more of Calvin's case. I have the report in 77 English Reports , 377. 
May I read from 4b ? It says in my copy in paragraph 5 “and first , de 
ligeantia. 1 . (a)” — Does your Lordship see that passage ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Where is it ? 

Mr. Slade : In 4b of 7 Coke's Reports. It first of all says 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and then 
proceeds under 5 to set out again 1 and 2, preceded by the words “and, 
first, de ligeantia.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Is that Calvins easel 

Mr. Slade: Yes, my Lord, Calvin's case in 7 Coke's Reports, 4b, concerning 
allegiance: “1. (a) Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject 
due to his sovereign . This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable 
to every subject , for as soon as he is born he oweth by birthright ligeance 
and obedience to his sovereign ” Then there is a Latin quotation, but I 
will not trouble your Lordship with that. That is where he comes into 
the expression, “ Therefore it is truly said that protection draws subjection 
and subjection protection'' l desire to emphasise that this protection is 
always the protection of our laws, which is only applicable so long as the 
alien is within the realm. At page 383 in the English Reports — 5b in your 
Lordship's report — it says, “ There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances : 
the first is ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura et indefinita, and this originally 
is due by nature and birthright, and is called ” — what I translate as “highest 
allegiance ” — “ and he that oweth this is called ‘ subject-born' .” The second 
is “acquired allegiance,” “ not by nature but by acquisition or denization ” 
The third is called “local allegiance,” “ wrought by the law , and that is when 
an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within 
England, he is within the King's protection, therefore so long as he is here 
he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one, as 
it hath been said, draweth the other ” May I emphasise that the Latin 
maxim there is expressly applied to the protection which arises from 
residence, that is to say, the power of the laws, and it is that which draws 
the duty of allegiance. May I ask your Lordship to look finally in this 
case at 6a, No. 3 ? “ Concerning the local obedience it is observable that , 
as there is a local protection on the King's part , so there is a local ligeance 
of the subject's part. And this appeareth ” — in 4 March (Brooke) and Dyer — 
“ Sherley , a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England 
and joined with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and 
Queen and the indictment concluded contra ligeant, suae debitum, for he 
owed to the King local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King's 
protection , which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain is yet 
Strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here that issue 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


125 


is a natural-born subject." Of course, if he had issue after he went to 
Italy for a day it would not be a British subject. That is Calvin's case ; 
Calvin's case was, I think, in the early seventeenth century. 1 

The next case my learned friend cited was De Jager and the Attorney- 
General of Natal. If the Crown is right, the whole of the elaborate argument 
of Sir Robert Finlay in that case was quite pointless. De Jager was a 
Dutchman who was resident in a place, I think, called Waschbank in Natal, 
and Natal was British territory ; therefore he was a Dutchman resident in 
British territory. The Boers occupied Waschbank, that part of Natal, 
and the British were forced temporarily — in fact for six months, I think — 
to retire to Ladysmith; and while the Boers were in occupation he, of 
course, being a Dutch subject would be a Boer. While the Boers were in 
occupation of Waschbank and the British were at Ladysmith he acted 
treasonably, and it was argued by Sir Robert Finlay — and this is the second 
important point in this case — that, as he had lost de facto British protection 
when the British forces were removed from Waschbank, his duty of local 
allegiance which he owed as a Dutch subject resident in British territory 
ceased : in other words, as he lost de facto the one, “the one draweth the 
other’’ and the other went. (And my friend emphasised the words “its 
counterpart went also.”) That emphasises the point which I desire to 
make when I come to make my eventual submission on this point, it is 
not the de facto protection which counts, nor is it a claim to protection 
on a passport to which you are entitled which counts: it is the right to 
protection de jure. If the Crown’s argument were correct. Sir Robert 
Finlay was wasting his time, because his client was quite obviously guilty 
even if his argument succeeded, because it would mean this : that a Dutch 
subject resident in British territory, who until the time of the occupation 
by the Boers owed allegiance, notwithstanding the fact that he was an 
alien, and notwithstanding the fact that Waschbank temporarily became 
territory outside the control of Her Majesty, the allegiance would continue 
and he could commit treason. 

I will not trouble your Lordship again with my friend’s American 
authority, Carlisle and the United States ; but I jotted down, as my friend 
read it, that Mr. Justice Field in the passage which he quoted said in 
substance that the alien owes a local and temporary allegiance which 
continues during his residence. I think those were the words. That 
was 16 Wallace , 147, at page 154. I do not think there are any other 
cases that I need trouble your Lordship with. I am not going to refer to 
the Stepney Election Petition , because, although the Attorney-General was 
good enough to say that it contained a passage which was against him, 
that passage is not nearly so strong as the passages I have read to your 
Lordship and particularly the passage from Blackstone. 

Your Lordship asked us if we could give your Lordship any assistance 
in connection with passports. My professional client, Mr. Head, and I 
have both endeavoured to do so. Mr. Head has been particularly indus- 
trious in the matter, and I think the only thing we can find is this, that 
there is an article called “The Passport System,” by N. W. Sibley, in the 
Journal of Comparative Legislation , new series, volume 7. I think it was 
written in 1906, which was the year after the Brailsford case. I have 
myself found a case which I will refer to shortly, because I think it may 
be a little bit helpful on what I may call the passport issue. That is the 
case of The King v. Ketter , 1940, 1 K.B. t 787, in the Court of Appeal. Shall 
I read the headnote ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes, please. 

1 It was, in fact, in 160S. 



126 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

Mr. Slade: “The appellant was born in Palestine in 1911, and until 1923 he was 
admittedly a Turkish subject . He lived in Palestine until 1937 when he came 
to England with a passport entitled ‘ British Passport , Palestine ’ and issued 
by the British High Commissioner in Palestine. The appellant having been 
convicted of offences under the Aliens Order , 1920: Held, that the appellant 
was an alien and had been rightly convicted , he not having become a British 
subject either by virtue of article 30 of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey 
signed at Lausanne on July 24, 1923 (which provided that Turkish subjects 
habitually resident in territory which , in accordance with the provisions of 
that treaty , was detached from Turkey should become ipso facto, in the 
conditions laid down by the local law , nationals of the State to which such 
territory was transferred ) or by virtue of the Palestine Mandate which was 
given by the League of Nations to Great Britain on July 24, 1923, since 
Palestine was not transferred to and consequently was not annexed within 
section 27, sub-section 1, of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens 
Act , 1914, as amended by section 2, sub-section 6, of the British Nationality 
and Status of Aliens Act, 1918, by Great Britain by either the Treaty or the 
Mandate. Held , further , that the effect of the Palestinian Citizenship 
Order , 1925, was prima facie that the appellant , being a Turkish subject 
habitually resident in Palestine on August 1, 1925, then became a Palestinian 
citizen. Even if the Order , at least so far as the first paragraph was con- 
cerned, was of no force or validity because it had been made by the mandatory 
power and not by the administration of Palestine , who were responsible under 
article 1 of the Mandate , the appellant would remain a Turkish subject and 
not become a British subject” 

My friend the Attorney-General referred, your Lordship may remember, 
to certain rights of parties in British-protected territory. Palestine, no 
doubt, would come within that description. Of course, it is only fair to 
say the onus of proof that he was a British subject in this case rested 
upon the appellant, your Lordship will remember, under the specific 
terms of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914; and my friend said that he 
specifically stated that such subjects would not be British subjects. I am 
not suggesting for one minute he has made any misstatements of the law ; 
I am merely saying we shall now see what happened to a person coming 
to England — perhaps I may now borrow my friend’s words — armed with 
what is said to be a British passport by the High Commissioner in Palestine, 
and, if I may use my friend’s picturesque phraseology, thereby clothed 
with the status of a British subject. All he got was a sentence of eleven 
days’ imprisonment and was recommended for deportation, and that con- 
viction was confirmed. It was taken to the Court of Criminal Appeal 
and the judgment of the court was delivered by Mr. Justice Singleton, 
the Court being Mr. Justice Humphreys, Mr. Justice Singleton and Mr. 
Justice Lewis. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What exactly does the case show? I follow that it 
shows that he did not gain much benefit from the passport, but what else 
does it show apart from that ? 

Mr. Slade : It shows this, does it not ? According to the argument when 
we come to the passport question, here was a man who de facto having 
a passport, which was a British passport, was entitled to the protection 
of the Crown — that is what was alleged — but I am suggesting that the 
protection of the Crown that the passport afforded to him in this particular 
case was that he got sent to prison when he got over here, because in fact 
and in law, as it now appears, he turned out to have the status of a Turkish 
subject. I merely cited this case, firstly, because your Lordship asked 

Mr. Justice Tucker : I follow now what it is. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 1 . 17 

Mr. Slade: Secondly, because Mr. Justice Singleton said this: “At the trial 
at the Central Criminal Court Mr. Lester " — he was counsel for the appellant 
— “based his case almost wholly on the passport issued to the appellant , 
which he claimed was a British passport. But it is difficult to see that this 
could lead the appellant to think that he was a British subject or could make 
him one" The argument put forward was that he became enveloped in 
the Union Jack and clothed with the status of a British subject. That is 
why I cited that case. The court held in point of fact that, although 
the High Commissioner had issued to this man a passport which was 
styled a British passport, it was not a British passport in law or in fact — 
I don’t know which makes fact or law. 

The Attorney-General : Will you read the first paragraph ? 

Mr. Slade : Certainly. Mr. Justice Singleton, delivering the judgment of the 
court, said: “The only question before this Court is whether the appellant 
is an alien within the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act y 1914. 
If he is an alien , it is not disputed that he committed the offences alleged. 
By section 27, sub-section 1, of the Act ‘ alien ’ means a person who is not a 
British subject , and by the same sub-section , as amended by section 2, 
sub-section 6, of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act , 1918, 

‘ British subject ’ means 4 a person who is a natural-born British subject or 
a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation has been granted or a person 
who has become a subject of His Majesty by reason of any annexation of 
territory I think I conveyed that to your Lordship, not only that, but 
I went so far as to make it clear that the onus lay upon the appellant here 
of proving that he was a British subject and it did not lie upon the Crown 
to prove that he was an alien. I was intending to put that point against 
myself. 

Before I pass to my point on jurisdiction, which I submit is essentially 
bound up with this point of protection and allegiance, I told your Lordship 
I would give you the reference to the conference of the Judges. I have 
now got volume 46 of the Law Quarterly Review. I am reading from 
“The Parliamentary Declaration of Treason,” by Professor Samuel Rezneck, 
at page 85. The sole point of this reference is in the hope of assisting 
your Lordship as to what was meant by a resolution of the Judges in 1707. 
Dealing with the conference of the Judges he says, “A second case is reported 
by Hale , who was himself present at the conference of Judges where it arose 
in 1675. A number of weavers had risen in riot against the use of an improved 
engine-loom. The Judges divided evenly , five against five, on the question 
as to whether the offence constituted a levying of war under the statute of 
1351 or was merely a riot. They agreed that if the Attorney-General saw 
fit to prosecute for treason , a special verdict might be found and the matter 
could then receive further consideration . Or ‘ according to the clause of 
the statute of 25 Edward III , the declarative judgment of the King and both 
Houses of Parliament might be had , because it was a new case and materially 
differedfrom other cases of like nature formerly resolved . ’ Neither suggestion 
was followed because the Prosecution proceeded against the men only on 
the rioting charge. Generally , however , such a suggestion was not even 
made. The Judges did not scruple to debate the law and to reach an agreement 
as to the nature of the offence either before the trial or after the trial , when 
a special verdict had been found. They were left with no doubts to refer 
to Parliament ” — the statute contained power to refer debatable points 
to Parliament. “There was the notorious case of Peacham in 1615, in which 
Bacon as Attorney-General exerted pressure upon the Judges in order to 
bring them to agree that the offence in question constituted treason under 
the statute of 1352. For a time Coke , who was Chief Justice , resisted the 
pressure on the ground that such ‘ particular and auricular taking of opinions 



128 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


was not according to the custom of the realm.' Bacon insisted that it was 
an obligation of the Judges to give counsel to the Crown when called upon ; 
the manner might differ with the circumstances , although ‘ the ordinary 
course was to assemble them Faced with the threat that he would be left 
alone in his opposition , Coke gave way and added his opinion in writing to 
those of the other Judges . Joint conferences of all the Judges held both 
before and after the trial in cases of treason were a common and accepted 
practice in the period following the Restoration. In spite of Hale's warning 
they served both to advise the Crown and to interpret the general law of 
treason , thereby dispensing with the need of making reference to Parliament. 
Between 1660 and 1663 .for example , the Judges met with the Government 
counsel a number of times , usually in Serjeants' Inn , in order to arrange for 
various trials involving treason. During his trial Sir Henry Vane was 
prepared to protest against this practice , citing Coke as his authority." 

In two footnotes it says: “ One of the best known sixteenth century 
precedents of a judicial conference held prior occurred in 1 595 in the Oxford 
Enclosure Cases. In commenting upon this case , Sir Mathew Hale was 
moved to admonish the courts * to be very wary in multiplying constructive 
treasons , for we know not where it will end.' He added that the decision 
in such cases properly belonged to Parliament ; under the clause of reservation." 
Then it says: “ The Judges of this period were able to wave aside Coke's 
authority with the observation that his posthumous writings contained * many 
great errors'." It also refers to Coke’s protest against the practice from 
Bacon’s correspondence with James I, as reprinted in 2 State Trials. That 
was extended following the Restoration in 1 660, and the resolution referred 
to in those two books — and I think only in those two books — was in 1707. 

Now I pass to the question of jurisdiction. In the submissions I am 
making to your Lordships now, of course I am assuming two things: 
First, which I think is now conceded, that the Defence has proved that the 
prisoner Joyce is an alien; indeed I act upon that assumption. And, 
secondly, as indeed each one of these counts alleges, that the treason was 
committed in the German realm. Indeed of course, if it could possibly 
have been said to be constructively committed in this country, one would 
have to consider the question of limitation of prosecutions in treason which 
I have explained, but it is not even suggested; each one of the counts 
alleges, your Lordship remembers, “in the German realm.” A succinct 
method of referring your Lordship to what I respectfully submit is the 
law on this point is by referring to the ninth volume of the second edition 
of Halsbury's Laws of England , at page 55, section 3 : “ The limits of criminal 
jurisdiction. English courts exercise criminal jurisdiction in respect of acts 
done by all persons , whether British subjects or aliens , (1) within the territory 
of England ; (2) on board a British ship on the high seas or in foreign rivers 
below bridges , where the tide ebbs and flows , and where great ships generally 
go ; (3) on the open sea within the territorial waters of the King's dominions ; 
also in respect of certain acts done by British subjects on land abroad or on 
any ship on the high seas which is not British. English courts do not exercise 
criminal jurisdiction in respect of acts of foreigners abroad or at sea , except 
within the territorial waters of the King's dominions , or on British ships 
and in the case of piracy jure gentium, which is triable and punishable 
everywhere , no matter where or by whom it is committed. Jurisdiction in 
respect of acts committed in England is the jurisdiction of the Common Law. 
Jurisdiction in respect of acts committed on board a British ship in the places 
above referred to is the Admiralty jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in respect of 
acts committed elsewhere is derived from statute" 

Now we come to Common Law jurisdiction : "At Common Law the 
exercise of criminal jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed within the 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


129 


land of England with its ports and harbours , bays , gulfs and estuaries and so 
much of the outer coast as extends to low water mark . The courts of Common 
Law have always exercised jurisdiction over all persons who committed 
crimes within these limits , whether such persons were subjects of the King 
or resident aliens or mere casual and temporary alien visitors . In respect 
of acts done outside those limits there was no jurisdiction at Common Law” 

1 will now pass from Admiralty jurisdiction, which is immaterial, and come 
to page 62. We now come to the alteration of the Common Law by 
statute. “ Jurisdiction in respect of crimes committed out of England. 
Treasons committed by a British subject out of England , and oppressions 
committed out of England by colonial governor s, are triable in the 
King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, or before such com - 
missioners and in such shire of the realm as may be assigned by the King's 
commission ” Your Lordship will see amongst the references to that 
authority is the statute in note (b), which is in fact the Treason Act of 
1543, 35 Henry VIII, c.2. I will refer your Lordship to that. Halsbury 
then proceeds— — 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Are you going to refer me to that ? 

Mr. Slade : Yes, and I am also going to refer your Lordship to a very recent 
book on the point and also the judgment of the court in the Jameson 
case as to the construction of statutes. All statutes must be construed 
as being limited to trying offences committed within British jurisdiction 
in dealing with an alien. It would be an affront to the sovereign power 
of another country for us to arrogate to ourselves the right to try, for 
example, a Frenchman for having committed a murder in France, even 
if we could get hold of him. We have a right to try a murder committed 
by a British subject in France. My Lord, if Halsbury is right — I will refer 
your Lordship to other authorities — if I may read one more section, I think 
it makes it, if it is right, conclusive. I will not trouble your Lordship 
with the vaiious acts, Perjury, etc., or the Merchant Shipping Act. I will 
refer to the Foreign Enlistment Act because the Jameson case dealt with 
that. That is at the foot of page 63 : “ The Foreign Enlistment Act , 1870, 
extends to all the dominions of the King , including the adjacent territorial 
waters. Any subject of the King who acts in contravention of the statute 
anywhere , or any foreigner temporarily resident in any part of the King's 
dominions ” — he does say “within the King’s dominions” — “ commits an 
offence for which he may be tried in the place where the offence was wholly 
or partly committed, if such place is in the King's dominions , or in any place 
in the King's dominions where the offender may be.” Paragraph 80 is the 
passage: “ Generally speaking , except in the case of piracy jure gentium, 
no person who is not a subject of the King can be tried in England in respect 
of any act which he commits outside the King's dominions.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : That would depend upon the construction of the particular 
statute in each case. 

Mr. Slade: I do not dispute that Parliament can do anything. 1 do not 
dispute that Parliament could pass an Act of Parliament to-morrow allowing 
the courts of this country to try a Chinese for bigamy committed in China 
or a Chinese for bigamy committed in Sweden. As to the construction of 
the Acts of Parliament I have brought The Queen v. Jameson , 1896, 

2 Queen's Bench , 425. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes. Will you read it, Mr. Slade ? 

Mr. Slade: My Lord, “By section 11 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, 
7/ any person within the limits of Her Majesty's dominions' ” — I would 
rather like your Lordship to have this because your Lordship sees : “If 



130 


THE TlUAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


any person within the limits of Her Majesty's dominions , and without the 
licence of Her Majesty , prepares or fits out any naval or military expedition 
to proceed against the dominions of any friendly state , the following con - 
sequences shall ensue : (1) ‘ Every person engaged in such preparation or 
fitting out , or assisting therein , or employed in any capacity in such expedition , 
shall be guilty of an offence : ’ Held, that if there be an unlawful preparation 
of an expedition by some person within Her Majesty's dominions , any British 
subject who assists in such preparation will be guilty of an offence even though 
he renders the assistance from a place outside Her Majesty's dominions. 
By section 2 of the said Act 4 This Act shall extend to all the dominions of 
Her Majesty.' And by section 3 4 This Act shall come into operation in 
the United Kingdom immediately on the passing thereof and shall be proclaimed \ 
in every British possession by the governor thereof as soon as may be after 
he receives notice of this Act , and shall come into operation in that British 
possession on the day of such proclamation.' An indictment alleged that 
4 within the limits of Her Majesty's dominions and after the coming into 
operation therein of the Act called the Foreign Enlistment Act , 1870,’ certain 
offences against the said Act were committed: Held , that the indictment 
sufficiently alleged the Act to have been in operation in that part of Her 
Majesty's dominions in which the alleged offences were committed." 

The passage is, however, in the judgment of the Court of Crown Cases 
Reserved, and I am quoting from the judgment of Lord Chief Justice 
Russell of Killowen at page 430 : "If in the result it be necessary in order to 
show that the Act was in operation in the place where the expedition was 
prepared , to prove that the Act was duly proclaimed there , failure on the 
part of the Crown to prove such proclamation will be fatal. But it is not 
a matter that need be averred in the indictment. It is enough for the purposes 
of the indictment to allege that the Act was in fact in operation in the place 
in question. 1 pass on to the objections taken to the ninth and subsequent 
counts which I may deal with briefly. But first I should like to make some 
observations with regard to the rules of construction applicable to statutes 
such as this. It may be said generally that the area within which a statute 
is to operate and the persons against whom it is to operate are to be gathered 
from the language and purview of the particular statute." That is what your 
Lordship put to me. 44 But there may be suggested some general rules , for 
instance , if there be nothing which points to a contrary intention , the statute 
will be taken to apply only to the United Kingdom " — now this is the important 
part — 44 but whether it be confined in its operation to the United Kingdom 
or whether , as is the case here, it be applied to the whole of the Queen's 
dominions , it will be taken to apply to all the persons in the United Kingdom 
or in the Queen's dominions , as the case may be, including foreigners who 
during their residence there owe temporary allegiance to Her Majesty. And 
according to its context it may be taken to apply to the Queen's subjects 
everywhere , whether within the Queen's dominions or without." These are 
the vital words: 44 One other general canon of construction is this, that, 
if any construction otherwise be possible, an Act will not be construed as 
applying to foreigners in respect to acts done by them outside the dominions 
of the sovereign power enacting." The Lord Chief Justice goes on: 44 That 
is a rule based on international law by which one sovereign power is bound 
to respect the subjects and the rights of all other sovereign powers outside 
its own territory." Of course, Sir Starr Jameson was a British subject. 

I was reading from page 430. 

So as to bring the law right up to date I propose to read from an essay 
by Professor Stailybrass published in 1945, and then I will refer to the 
Treason Act of 1543. I really adopt this as part of my argument. The 
book is The Modern Approach to Criminal Law in the series of English 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


131 


Studies in Criminal Science . Professor Stallybrass 1 says, “ Limitation of 
Jurisdiction by Territory By English common law crime is essentially 
territorial . 'All crime is local. The jurisdiction over the crime belongs to 
the country where the crime is committed That is from the case of Macleod 
v. The Attorney-General of New South Wales. “All jurisdiction is properly 
territorial Then there is a Latin quotation. “ Such is the fixed rule of 
common law. No criminal proceedings can be taken in this country for a 
crime committed abroad , but over crimes committed in England the common- 
law courts have jurisdiction even if committed by aliens only temporarily 
resident in this country , including perhaps prisoners of war. Such persons 
are treated as owing a temporary allegiance to the Crown . But no such doc- 
trine can apply to an alien enemy who is not yet a prisoner of war. Protection 
and allegiance are co-extensive ” — again saying it is the protection of the 
law. “But allegiance as the sole foundation of jurisdiction has perforce 
been in fact abandoned. But statutes have made some inroads upon the 
rigidity of this common-law rule. Statutes have in certain cases given 
English courts jurisdiction to deal with crimes committed by British subjects 
abroad. The chief of these offences are treason by a statute of 1543 ” — the 
next one goes on to murder, bigamy and offences, the person and so on. 
May I just repeat those words: “ Crimes committed by British subjects 
abroad ... the chief of these offences are treason by a statute of 1543 

Mr. Justice Tucker: He does not say anything about crimes committed 
by foreigners abroad. There are some statutes which deal with that. 

Mr. Slade : I don't know of one, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Doesn’t the Explosives Act deal with that? 

Mr. Slade: Halsbury , dealing with the Explosive Substances Act, 1883, 
paragraph 72, page 63, says this : “A subject of the King is triable in England , 
if without the King's dominions he unlawfully and maliciously does any act 
with intent to cause by an explosive substance an explosion 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes, it was the case where express provision was made 
for doing an act outside the country which takes effect elsewhere. 

Mr. Slade: Yes, my Lord; it would be quite inconsistent with what Halsbury 
has said, except in the case of piracy. The Treason Act, 1543, of course, 
has to be read in the light of the canon of construction which Lord Chief 
Justice Russell, I think it was, mentioned in Jameson. I have not looked 
to see whether it was repealed by the Treason Act of 1945. I assume, of 
course, against myself it was not. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Where is that to be found ? 

Mr. Slade : The Treason Act 1945 ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker : No, 1543. 

Mr. Slade: The most convenient place, I think, is Halsbury' s Statutes , volume 
4. My friend tells me it is in the latest edition of Archbold at page 1058. 

I myself prefer to look at the statute, because it is not always easy to find 
what is quotation from the statute and what is Archbold. It is entitled 
‘An Act concerning the trial of treasons committed out of the King’s 
Majesty’s dominions.” “ For obviating doubts as the trial of treasons and 
misprisons of treason committed abroad . Forasmuch as some doubts and 
questions have been moved that certain kinds of treasons , misprisions and 
concealments of the treason done , perpetrated or committed out of the King's 
Majesty's realm of England cannot or may by the Common Laws of this 
realm be inquired of heard and determined within this said realm of England 
for a plain remedy , order and declaration therein to be had and made , be it 
enacted by the authority of this present Parliament that : All manner of 

1 Mr. W. T. S. Stallybrass, Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford ; Reader in Criminal 

Law and Procedure in the University of Oxford. 



132 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


offences being already made , declared or hereafter to be made or declared , 
by any the laws and statutes of this realm , to be treasons , misprisions of 
treason or concealments of treasons , and done , perpetrated or committed 
or hereafter to be done, perpetrated or committed by any person or persons 
out of this realm of England shall be from henceforth inquired of heard and 
determined before the King's Justices of his bench for pleas to be holden 
before himself by good and lawful men of the same shire where the said 
bench shall sit and be kept or else before such commissioners and in such 
shire of the realm as shall be assigned by the King's Majesty's commission , 
and by good and lawful men of the same shire in like manner and form to all 
intents and purposes as if any such treasons , misprisions of treasons or conceal- 
ments of treasons had been done , perpetrated and committed within the same 
shire where they shall be so inquired of heard and determined as is aforesaid." 
And then: “ Peers shall be tried by peers. Provided always that , if any 
of the peers of this realm shall happen to be indicted of any such treasons 
or other offences aforesaid by authority of this Act , that then after such 
indictment they shall have their trial by their peers in such like manner and 
form as hath been heretofore accustomed." My case refers to The Queen 
v. Lynch and The King v. Casement. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What do you say about that ? 

Mr. Slade: I say that that, of course, must be read to apply only so far as 
it applies to aliens at all, first of all. I do not concede that it applies to 
- aliens at all ; but, assuming that it applies to aliens at all, it can only apply 
to aliens in respect of offences or treasons committed within the King’s 
dominions upon the canon of construction put forward by the learned 
Lord Chief Justice. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: I don’t quite follow what you say. I follow the canon 
of construction. That would apply to any Act of Parliament; that would 
apply to the Act of 1351, which is what we are dealing with. I don’t 
quite follow how this carries the matter any farther. 

Mr. Slade : I don’t think it does. It may be said that the 1351 statute enacted 
nothing at all, but was merely declaratory of the existing law. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : It really provides how people who offend against that 
Act outside the realm are to be tried. 

Mr. Slade : Quite, my Lord, it is purely procedure, and is merely expressed 
to be passed to resolve doubts with regard to procedure. One could not 
in any event treat a procedural statute as enacting the law. It really in 
my respectful submission requires no argument at all, because we know 
in civil cases it is an affront or considered to be an affront to the sovereignty 
of another realm to issue a writ upon a foreign subject in that realm, because 
it says that “His Majesty commands you within eight days.’’ You can 
get leave to serve a writ upon a British subject in the British dominions, 
but you have to serve notice of writ. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : I think that is rather different ; that is where you are going 
into the foreign country and doing something there. If a man commits 
an offence abroad you cannot go and arrest him there; you have got to 
wait until he comes here. It is rather different. 

Mr. Slade: Yes. Joyce was arrested abroad, but I am not on that point 
at the moment. I am merely saying that it would be quite inconsistent 
with the ordinary comity of nations for one nation to arrogate to itself 
the right to try subjects of that nation for acts committed while they were 
within the territory of that nation. If that were not so, anyone, to take 
a fantastic case, could take an American subject who was paying a visit 
over here and try him over here for a murder which it was alleged he had 
committed in New York. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Unless the statute made it clear. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


133 


Mr. Slade: I was only emphasising that, as your Lordship says fairly enough, 
unless the statute provides \ but I was going to say there was every ratio 
for the rule laid down by the learned Chief Justice, because that is exactly 
what one would expect after dealing with whether the statute applies to 
British subjects generally or to the United Kingdom or to the Dominions. 
He then says, even if that construction is possible or even probable, you 
must not put it on the ground of international law. 

That is all I desire to say to your Lordship, subject to this one final 
point. If your Lordship should be against me upon the pure point of law 
and on the point of law with regard to jurisdiction, there still arises the 
point before I address the jury — perhaps your Lordship would assist me 
because my friend might want to reply — as to whether your Lordship is 
going to leave any special question to the jury for a special verdict, or 
whether your Lordship is going to direct the jury. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: I have not yet decided, Mr. Slade, whether there is any- 
thing for the jury at all. 

Mr. Slade: Those are all the observations I have to make. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: Yes, Mr. Attorney ? 

The Attorney-General: My Lord, may I first of all deal with the point 
which is present to my mind with regard to which my learned friend last 
dealt — the point of jurisdiction. In my submission that point really 
begs the whole question in this case, the question whether or not the prisoner 
was under a duty of allegiance to the Crown. If one looks at the statute, 
and in my submission it can not be doubted that it is within the power of 
Parliament to pass a statute creating criminal offences in foreigners abroad 
— if one looks at the original statutes of treasons, it is clear on that statute, 
as construed in the Casement case, that it does apply to offences committed 
outside the realm. That was, of course, the great argument in the Casement 
case, as your Lordship will remember. It was contended in that case, 
although no question of nationality as part of the treason arose, that the 
statute was limited to offences committed within the realm and after con- 
siderable argument in the trial it was held that it applied to offences wherever 
they were committed. The statute itself, as to the persons who might 
commit the offence of treason, appears to cover anybody, British subjects 
or foreigners, any person. The effect of the cases has been to qualify 
the statute to this extent, that it only covers those persons who are under 
a duty of allegiance to the Crown. One is then thrown back to what is, 
in my submission, one of the primary questions in this case: Was the 
prisoner under a duty of allegiance to the Crown ? If one accepts the 
view that the Statute of Treasons applies to acts committed outside the 
realm and applies to persons who owe a duty of allegiance to the Crown, 
then in my submission the procedural act which your Lordship has, the 
Act of 1543, clearly brings to an end any doubt that might have hitherto 
existed in regard to the jurisdiction to try a foreigner: it makes it quite 
clear in regard to all persons, whether they be foreigners or not, that treasons 
committed outside the realm are triable in the King’s courts. My learned 
friend says that so to hold would be an affront to the comity of nations. 
In my submission, no. The exercise of what is well recognised in inter- 
national law by the term “protective jurisdiction” is accepted on the part 
of all nations. 

May I refer on that to Hall on International Law , (1944). At page 
261 there is this paragraph: “ The municipal law of the larger number of 
European countries enables the tribunals of the state to take cognizance of 
crimes committed by foreigners in foreign jurisdiction. Sometimes their 
competence is limited to cases in which the crime has been directed against the 
safety or high prerogatives of the state inflicting punishment , but it is some - 



134 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


times extended over a greater or less number of crimes directed against 
individuals” and then he goes on to cite a great number of instances of 
foreign countries exercising an extra-territorial, generally protective 
jurisdiction of that kind. It is put in Roscoe 

Mr. Justice Tucker : I am not quite sure that I have the same edition as yours. 
What edition of Hall are you reading from ? 

The Attorney-General: The 8th edition, 1924. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the heading of the passage you read ? 

The Attorney-General : “ Sovereignty in relation to the territory of the State.” 

Mr. Justice Tuckbr : I want to make sure I have got the right chapter. 

The Attorney-General : It is Part 2 of Chapter 4 in my edition. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: “ Sovereignty in relation to the territory of the State ” — 
is that it ? 

The Attorney-General: Yes, my Lord; I have paragraph 62. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : What is your side-note ? 

The Attorney-General: My side-note is “ Crimes committed by foreigners in 
territory foreign to the State exercising jurisdiction” The international 
validity of statutes of this kind is a matter about which one might no 
doubt argue, but to say that the existence of such statutes is an affront 
to the comity of nations, in my submission, is quite wrong. I think it 
is right to say that there is hardly a state in the world which does not in 
fact exercise a protective jurisdiction over foreigners in respect of crimes 
committed outside its own territory. 

Mr. Justicb Tucker : What do you call “protective jurisdiction ?” 

The Attorney-General : I am limiting the jurisdiction and I am limiting the 
principle of protective jurisdiction in this sense. It is recognised that 
states are entitled to make laws affecting foreigners even in respect of offences 
committed outside their own territory so far as such laws are reasonably 
necessary for their own protection. That is why, my Lord, it is limited 
very often to matters, as Hall puts it — 1 have not the exact phrase in my 
mind now — affecting the safety or high prerogatives of the state, of which 
of course treason is pre-eminently one. 

My Lord, there is a very short passage in Roscoe at page 213, referring 
to 1 Pitt Cobbett y 219, “ Jurisdiction over aliens abroad is ‘ usually only in 
virtue of ' ” 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is the heading? 

The Attorney-General : It is under the heading of “Jurisdiction and Venue,” 
and it is page 213 in my copy: “ Jurisdiction over aliens abroad is ‘ usually 
only in virtue of some special connection , such as service within three months 
on board a British vessel' ” My Lord, here, of course, the special connection 
which makes this alien subject to the jurisdiction of the Court is, in my 
submission, the connection of allegiance. That is why I say with respect, 
the submission put by my learned friend seems really to beg the real 
question in this case, which is the question of allegiance. If there is alle- 
giance, then under the Statute of Treasons and the statute of 35 Henry VIII 
there is jurisdiction to try. My learned friend referred to the case of 
Keyn, but that was a very different case. That was a case of a Common 
Law offence, where the matter for decision was whether a death which 
occurred on a foreign ship could be said to have taken place within the 
territorial jurisdiction of the British courts, and it was held that it was not 
within the territorial jurisdiction. It was a very different case, a Common 
Law offence: here is a statutory offence, and although no doubt the general 
canon of construction would be not to give extra-territorial effect to the 
statute either in relation to foreigners or to British subjects, one has to look 
at the language and purpose of each particular statute to see what Parliament 
intended in each particular case. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


135 


Here, in my submission, it is perfectly clear on the Casement case that 
the effect of the Statute of Treasons is of an extra-territorial kind. Then, 
once one sees it is of an extra-territorial kind, one has to ascertain : Is the 
particular defendant who is alleged to have committed an offence under 
it one of that class of persons who can commit offences under the Act, 
and is that class of persons a class of persons, whether British subjects or 
not, who owe allegiance to the British Crown ? On the opposite page of 
Archbold on which the statute of Henry VIII is set out, on page 1059, there 
is the statute of Edward VI in regard to treasons abroad, which provides 
that “If any of the King's subject s 9 denizens or other , do commit or practise 
out of the limits of this realm in any outward part any of the offences which 
by this Act are made or heretofore now standing in force have been made 
treason , that then such treasons ” shall be triable as if they had been com- 
mitted within the realm. Then your Lordship sees the note: “ This enact- 
ment has not been specifically repealed , but there is no trace in the text-books 
or in reported cases or in those of which the record is preserved in the Record 
Office , of the trial of any foreign treason by any other procedure than that 
provided by 35 Henry VIII." 

Mr. Slade: That has been repealed by the Treason Act of 1945. 

The Attorney-General : I am obliged ; I am told it is a statute which is now 
repealed. Even so it was until 1945 a statute and I will draw attention to 
the note. Apparently that statute, although it refers to foreign treasons, 
has never been in fact relied upon, foreign treasons always having been dealt 
with under the statute of Henry VIII. I would submit to your Lordship 
that there can be no doubt on the construction of the Statute of Treasons 
that it embraces offences committed anywhere within the realm or outside 
it, in the words of the statute, by persons who owe allegiance ; and that so 
to construe it, far from being an affront to the comity of nations or incon- 
sistent with the accepted principles of international law, is in accordance 
with the accepted practice of all countries in the exercise of their protective 
jurisdiction. 

Going back to the beginning of my learned friend’s argument, my 
learned friend said, that with the exception of the passages in Foster and 
East , there was no authority for the proposition that the non-resident 
alien was under any duty of allegiance. My Lord, the no-authority 
proposition is often used and it is right that proper weight should be 
attached to it ; but, if it were always accepted as a ground for a negative 
decision, our laws would have been quite incapable of expanding and 
broadening down from precedent to precedent in a way which is, of course, 
characteristic of the Common Law. 

If there is no precedent for this case, it is simply because in no previous 
case have comparable circumstances arisen. The passport is a document 
of comparatively modem growth. There have been very few cases— there 
has been one, certainly — of treason since the introduction of passports; 
indeed passports only came into general use in the course of this century, 
and in the course of that time there has, as far as I can recall, been one 
case, and one only, under the Treason Act. Foster and East are in my 
submission powerful authorities for the view that the essential basis of 
allegiance is the right to protection, especially when one remembers that 
there is excluded from the obligation of allegiance the possibly resident 
but the non-protected alien. It is perfectly true, as my friend says in the 
case of all the books that have been cited, that protection is related to 
residence; but in my submission the only significance to be attached to 
that is that in those days, at the time of those decisions or those expressions 
of opinion as to the state of the law, residence was in fact the only way 
in which the Crown could effectually take a person under the protection 



136 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


of the sovereign and the protection of the sovereign originally depended 
on executive action rather than on judicial action. The alien was put 
under the King’s peace. In the course of the growth of our Common Law 
that came to mean ‘under the jurisdiction and protection of the King’s 
laws as administered in the King’s Courts’; but in my submission it is 
merely an extension of that principle to say that the alien, who continues 
under the executive protection of the King when he goes with a British 
passport into a foreign land, is in the same position as the resident alien 
was in the days of Calvin's case and of Coke and of Foster , Both the 
protection of the ordinary territorial law of the country and the protection 
of the King’s diplomatic representative and the King’s armed forces have 
their source, have their fons et origo in the same place, in the sovereign 
power of the King ensuring in his own control the maintenance of the 
King’s peace through the judicial machinery of the country, and ensuring 
outside his control, so far as his force enables him so to do, the protection 
of those he takes under his protection against any invasion of their rights 
by a foreign power. 

My friend placed considerable reliance on the case to which at the 
beginning I drew your Lordship’s attention of Johnstone and Pedlar , and 
he said in relation to that case, and indeed in relation to one or two other 
authorities, notably, I think, Blackstone, to which I referred your Lordship, 
that either Lord Phillimore must be wrong or the Crown’s contention in 
this case must be wrong. But, my Lord, not so. In my submission there 
is not a word in any part of the Johnstone and Pedlar case, in any one of 
the opinions in that case, which, properly read, not too narrowly inter- 
preted, is inconsistent with the submission which is being made on behalf 
of the Crown in this case. It is true that that referred to residence, it is 
true that Blackstone in the passage that has been quoted refers to the 
allegiance ceasing when the alien transfers himself from this country ; but 
one has got to see what is meant by residence and what is meant by transfer 
in that context, and one has, in my submission, to remember that in those 
days — I think in Blackstone’s day and in the early days in which this 
matter was discussed — residence in general was a more permanent matter 
than it may be in more modern times. Travel was not easy ; communication 
was not easy ; mere transient visits were not so common ; and in the ordinary 
case I suppose an alien who left the country was likely to be leaving it 
permanently and for good. 

My Lord, as I understood my learned friend’s argument — I am not at 
all sure that I am doing justice to him on this point — my learned friend 
rather relied on the Johnstone and Pedlar case as being some authority 
for the proposition that the very commission of an act of treason put an 
end to the allegiance, put an end to the right to protection, and therefore 
put an end to the allegiance. He was referring to the words that I used 
in that case and adopted in that case from Lord Coke : “protection draws 
allegiance and allegiance draws protection”; and therefore, if allegiance 
goes, he said, protection goes. In other words, that argument is to say 
this: that the moment a person who, being under the protection of the 
Crown and consequently under a duty of allegiance to the Crown, commits 
a treason, his allegiance comes to an end and he is not triable for it. Lord 
Sumner’s opinion in the Johnstone and Pedlar case is, in my submission, 
exactly to the opposite effect. He is discussing the doctrine of mutuality 
there and he is saying that, once protection arises, it does not cease merely 
because the person who owes a duty of allegiance because of its existence 
commits treason. Once the protection arises, it continues until by some 
positive act of election on the part of the Crown it is withdrawn. No 
doubt, when the person who has been placed under the protection of the 




Ai,.( Siujuini* id 
•■-MiJt in f'i{l i!!V»niA.iu# 

»f ft MftftKtgp Woman 


Thi whole of the Declaration and Marginal Particul&ra^l^tild be In the Applicant * own ha .> v 
W« .*■» l« <wr.«i (or * S' 1 " 1 *" 1 * «" Block Capital.. _ 

n „ Declaration to be ni t 

li i < »*n i wild, (In !}(»> '•**»- *f-}(.!i|jit under "f m .» , 

•(.■tt'.iu . wl .)( Mlm r Hi ii>* ioim. pvi-Tit «.r o .. ».•!«, };, J 

TT w #!.*■- u„ b) 

*>f ft Mftitkiip Woman w * 

ttt P‘^ nt &t U*h FO/LpJulux/, 

r ( k>* l»*r I«I tSa < LU»4UM^»*' w^rr-Tm -W tixtiTTI \ » 

<ci 

, i, i ....A, i a ' id i^yyi, (X ix 

'• ftutt*fyjL‘hc. 9 ir A L WAy, MtC 

Ki ft UoRki v rtti'A I>. »*.'• 


, J 7 , (sjut yyi 

H ctiu d / kh, 



ISSUE 

<W^ - 

BRITISH EMPIRt 
■MiROPE^TO. 





\ JLI 4 j^yKr mfl * . , » V ■ IS. O *-* (lAllOf NH 

k.q» '>■>.>« IN'. u»’,-! *h. t-w Ul , 

53 aUTipjMfi^ 

! Tbs mention of penont *ho 

art uked to sign thin declaration 'J* a ; ,i: > £ 1“ '*“■ t ‘ 1 *' » 1 -li- 

lt ftpeciftiiy call ad to the fact that 
It can only be signed from par- 

riK’TiMift*ri».« 1 *M ailjftji ttfttontiinwi hm „ au i I ' 

sonil knowledg e of the ipplicint ,iu.u.d >* w t.fir,s ami *,] , , k 

and not trim information ukn r-m «* 

obUlned from ^tber peraona. 


Si§m jwwr mm an U* m#k W»p, w4*> *■»# £w tUtwkmi Sptnmtrn n^nuU^r* c/ «•»/« ir u> fc« w*ctu»M\i . «< 
m^nd to tit /W^c *■/,«* <*, 


mm 


yS^iVSU^v9iS3SSm] 

ifi t 

j^2g€. 





warned that 


the constqaei 








? ®he3fVHvs sy? \>nr tnrws svmv n» 



larationt prof to be untrut . 
up may ba —rioai. 




THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


137 


Crown and owes the corresponding duty of allegiance commits treason, 
it is open to the Crown to withdraw the protection ; but unless the Crown 
so elects to do the protection continues and the traitor remains under the 
protection of the Crown even when he is being tried for treason. 

There is nothing to prevent a traitor who has committed one treason, 
not exactly at the same time, committing another treason: he remains 
under the protection and consequently he remains under the duty of 
allegiance. It was in that sense, in my submission, that Lord Sumner 
was attacking the doctrine of mutuality: allegiance draws protection, 
protection draws allegiance. The relationship having arisen it cannot be 
terminated by unilateral action on the part of the subject who is taken 
under the protection of the Crown. 

Then my learned friend said in terms that the Crown had no jurisdiction 
to issue a passport to an American subject. My Lord, in passing I might 
say this — and I think it is, for reasons which will occur to your Lordship, 
desirable to say it — that, although at the time material to the issue of a 
passport this man was an American subject, the evidence before the court 
at the moment as to his nationality is that he is a German subject, but 
acquired German nationality at a date before America came into the story, 
and his present position, of course, is that he is not an American but a 
German subject. 

Mr. Slade : My Lord, I was going to say it would be a matter of German law. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: For the moment it seems to me that all that has been 
established is that he has never been a British subject, with the fact that he 
has stated that he became a naturalised German. 

Mr. Slade: The form of the indictment is “ purported to become naturalised .” 

The Attorney-General: I am relying on his own statement and on the fact 
that he had a German passport. There is no authority whatever for the 
proposition that the Crown has no jurisdiction to issue a passport to an 
American subject, and in my submission it is clearly wrong. It is done, 

I will not say every day, but with considerable frequency. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: I have had no evidence about it, Mr. Attorney. As 
far as my researches show, passports, I understand, are issued as part of 
the prerogative of the Crown , and I suppose that under that prerogative 
the Crown issues a passport to whomever it likes; but of course it is 
unthinkable that the Crown would issue a British passport to an American 
citizen describing him as a British citizen. 

The Attorney-General: In practice that would undoubtedly be the position, 
but not always ; because the position of dual nationality is well recognised 
and it is particularly recognised in the case of America. There is no 
evidence of this, but it is I think a matter of law. An American woman 
who marries a British subject acquires British nationality and is thereby 
entitled to a British passport, but she is still entitled to an American passport 
because she does not lose her American nationality. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : She gets a British passport as a British subject by inter- 
national law. 

The Attorney-General: Yes, my Lord, but the sole fact that a person has 
another status is no reason why the British Crown cannot grant a British 
passport. If my friend had put it on the other basis, that the Crown had 
no jurisdiction to grant a British passport to a person who is not a British 
subject, then, if I may say so with respect, he might have been on a little 
stronger ground. But, even so, my submission is that it is quite clear 
that such a proposition would have been wrong ; indeed the very application- 
form which is in evidence in this case refers not only to British subjects 
and to naturalised subjects but to British-protected subjects ; and a British 
passport can be issued and is issued to persons, whether they be British 



138 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


subjects or not, whom the Crown in the exercise of its prerogative powers 
thinks right to protect. My learned friend referred to Ketter's case , I 
think it was, in which a passport had been issued not by the British Crown 
or by the Secretary of State but by the Consular officials of Palestine ; and 
he placed some reliance upon that case. My Lord, there is another case 
of Markwald which goes even further perhaps in the direction in which 
my friend wanted to go, but it goes no way at all for the purposes of this 
case. Ketter's case and Markwald' s case both turn on the construction 
of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act. Under the Act every- 
body is an alien who is not a British-born or naturalised British subject. 
Markwald' s case was a case which dealt with a person who had a certificate 
of naturalisation granted to him in Australia and it was held none the less 
that he was an alien in this country, because the British Nationality and 
Status of Aliens Act, in defining British subjects and including within the 
scope of the term the naturalised subject, referred only to persons who 
were naturalised in accordance with the provisions of that Act; and it 
was held that that did not embrace a person naturalised by the provisions 
of an Australian Act. It was a local naturalisation which did not extend 
to this country. Both those cases are very narrow decisions only covering 
the construction of the 1914 Act. 

My learned friend gave the rather curious hypothetical case of a 
passport granted, whether by mistake or fraud or not, to a person who was 
not a British subject and who found himself in conflict with the authorities 
in Spain, and he suggested to your Lordship that a Spanish national 
might have gone to a British Consul and impeached the authority of the 
passport, and the Consul would have said, “Oh, very well, we will tear 
the passport up.” Your Lordship will probably think that no consular 
or other official would have any kind of authority to tear up the protection 
of a command of His Majesty that a particular person was to be accorded 
the privileges of a British subject or the privilege of protection by British 
consular officials. It is a situation which is discussed in the books on 
international law ; it is recognised by foreign powers. One might produce 
evidence tending to show that a passport had been secured by fraud or by 
mistake, but it is universally held that no one can impeach a passport and 
that the only power which can withdraw it and put an end to its effect 
and authority is the power which had issued it — in other words, in this 
country the sovereign ; and, so long as this passport was in existence, not 
withdrawn, not countermanded, this man, whether he was an American 
subject, or whatever his nationality may have been, was entitled to be treated 
with the rights and the privileges of a person protected by a British passport. 
He was entitled to call on the assistance of diplomatic or consular officials, 
and was entitled to be regarded by foreign powers as a person clothed 
with the status, as I put it, of a British subject, whatever his nationality 
mav have been 

If I may say so, with respect, I have heard nothing in my learned friend’s 
very, if I may say so without presumption, distinguished argument in this 
case to lead me to withdraw from the position that I have taken up in regard 
to “protection.” My submission as to that I made to your Lordship 
and I will not repeat it, but I do attach the very strongest importance to 
the proposition that a person who enjoys the effective protection of the 
British Crown is under a duty of allegiance so long a$ that protection 
continues. 

Even if that proposition were wrong, the question would remain, 
as your Lordship suggested in the course of the argument: “What is 
‘residence’ for the purposes of this rule ?” Is it synonymous with mere 
presence and only with mere physical presence within the territory of the 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


139 


Crown; or does it, on the other hand, approach domicile? Again, 
as I submit, it is right perhaps to remember the circumstances of the times 
when the rule as to residence was first enunciated. There are not likely 
to be many transient visitors, foreigners, coming to this country; they are, 
for the most part, likely to come for some time and likely, when they go 
to go permanently. Since those days travel has become very much easier. 
The resolution of the Judges, as stated in Foster and East , makes it quite 
clear that even in those days “residence” was not being construed in the 
narrow sense of mere presence. The man who although he was not present 
in the country, had left either his family or his effects in the country remained 
within the rule as laid down there. 

My Lord, is it to be said that an alien who is resident, resident in the more 
permanent sense, domiciled perhaps, in this country, but who takes an 
aeroplane or who takes a speedboat and goes outside the territorial juris- 
diction, outside the three-mile limit, or over to the Continent and there 
commits some act which would be treasonable if committed by a British 
subject, and immediately returns to this country after an absence of an 
hour or two, is not to be amenable to our courts in a matter of treason ? 
If that is not right, where is the line to be drawn between the resident alien, 
who is properly to be deemed resident although he may not be physically 
present in the country at a particular moment, and the alien who has 
finally shaken the dust of this country off his heels ? 

My Lord, I would submit that the test for this purpose is that an alien 
can be said to depart from this country— I am using the phrase in one of 
the authorities; Blackstone, I think, said “transferred from this country” 
when he has left the country and severed those ties which bound him to the 
country as a subject — not as a national, but as a subject. As your Lordship 
of course knows, the word “subject” in this context is not synonymous with 
nationality. A man who has left the country and in leaving it has put an 
end to the ties which bound him to the country as a subject and has left 

it intending to leave it permanently 

Mr. Justice Tucker: That is getting very near the domicile test, isn’t it ? 

The Attorney-General : Very near domicile, my Lord. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: There is no trace in any of the cases that it has ever 
occurred to anyone on this question of domicile. 

The Attorney-General: No, I respectfully agree. I am not sure that the 
doctrine of domicile was discussed or, indeed, that it existed at that early 


Mr. Justice Tucker: I did express the view yesterday tentatively that it might 
be a question for the jury as to the intent, and so forth. I am inclined to the 
view and I should like your assistance on this, that it seems to me that what 
is essential to your case is the reliance you place on the protection afforded 
by a passport. If you are right about that, then it would appear to me to be 
a pure question of law, irrespective of the animus with which the defendant 

may have left the realm. . . , 

The Attorney-General: My Lord, I think I would, with respect, be inclined 
to put it on the two feet: one of residence, defining residence at the 
lowest in this sense, as continuing until the ties which made the resident a 
subiect of this country had been broken, and one of the ties would be the 
existence of a passport. If the resident alien leaves the country, he leaves 
it with a passport, enabling him to return to the country; he leaves it with 
a passport which is issued to him for the purpose of going on a holiday, 
and then he continues to be resident for the purposes of the authorities. 
Alternatively, if not resident in that sense, he continues to be protected by 
the possession of the passport. Even there I am not suretha i there might 
not be a question of fact for the jury. Would this proposition be right ? 



140 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Would it be a question of fact whether or not the prisoner, being at the time 
a domiciled Englishman, applied for and obtained the protection of the 
Crown in order that he might enjoy that protection whilst temporarily 
travelling abroad ? 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Well, you see, the evidence is all one way ; the evidence 
stands uncontradicted ; and it occurs to me it is a matter of law whether 
on that evidence the prisoner owed allegiance or not. When I say that 
it is uncontradicted, I am dealing merely with the actual facts. If the state 
of his mind, the intent with which he left the country, is an element, then 
that might be a matter for the jury, but I doubt whether that is an element 
for their consideration, having regard to the way in which you put the case. 

The Attorney-General: My Lord, of course I respectfully agree that the 
facts are ascertained and not in dispute. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Very well. 

The Attorney-General: My Lord, the facts on both heads are ascertained 
and not in dispute, the facts as to residence and as to the ties which still 
remain, apart from the passport. There is evidence of the passport 
application-forms, as to what he states his residence to be ; there is evidence 
as to the family ; no evidence whatever as to the wife, unless one takes 
the statement in the 1933 application that he is married. As to whether 
that marriage continues or whether his wife, if he continued to be married 
to her, left with him at the end of August or in early September, 1939, 
there is no evidence. 

Mr. Slade: There is evidence in Exhibit 18A, the English translation. 1 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Anyway, I don’t think we need go into that, Mr. Attorney. 
There is no evidence that he left his wife or children in this country. 

The Attorney-General : No, my Lord, there is no evidence on that. There 
is evidence that he left his parents with whom, if Exhibit 36 means anything, 
he appears to have had close ties of sympathy in this country. 

Mr. Justice Tucker: What is Exhibit 36 ? 2 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, I do not pretend to rely on it to any great 
extent, except to show that he was not completely divorced from his family 
associations. There is some evidence in the passport application-form 
and the application for its renewal that at least he had some business 
association with a bank, the same bank throughout the period of years 
preceding his departure, which might be enough to infer that he had a 
banking account. There is no evidence that he transferred it or transferred 
any property; but all those matters, as your Lordship says, are matters 
not in dispute, but they are before your Lordship, and I do ask your Lordship 
to say here that in the circumstances of this case a person who, being 
domiciled in this country, applies for a passport for holiday purposes does 
not cease to be resident in it merely because he leaves the country. 

My Lord, we do not know at what date he left the country, and I say 
advisedly he may have left at any date between the 25th August and the 
16th September; but, if there had been no war or if the war had ended 
more abruptly and in a different way, the presumption would be, in my 
submission, that he would do what presumably he had done in the case 
of his previous passport; he would return here. He had applied for a 
holiday passport and, having had his holiday, he would take up and resume 
his home in the country with which he had clearly all his ties and associations. 

I do not think there is any other point upon which I can assist your 
Lordship. 

* This was the certificate referred to in Mr. Salzado’s evidence in the 11th paragraph 

on p. 56 above. 

* This was the letter signed “Father” referred to by Mr. E. Q. Joyce on p. 89 above. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


141 


Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Slade, you were asking some question ? 

Mr. Slade : I was going to ask your Lordship whether you would allow me 
to make one observation only on one point which my friend made. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes. 

Mr. Slade : That was merely the point on which he suggested my point about 
jurisdiction begged the question of allegiance. In my respectful submission, 
they have nothing whatever in common, and it can be shown conclusively 
in this way : If you allege that a person has committed treason, you have 
got to allege that he owes allegiance, and some tribunal professes to try 
that question. My first point is that this tribunal has no power or juris- 
diction to try that question, a totally different question. If I were wrong, 
then one could always obtain jurisdiction over aliens by merely alleging 
without proving it that they owed allegiance. That is all I desire to say 
upon that point. 

There is one other point. My friend mentioned the case of Casement. 
Your Lordship remembers that not only was Casement a British subject, 
but the sole point was whether the words “adhering to the King’s enemies — ” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : “Elsewhere.” 


Mr. Slade: “Adhering elsewhere” — applied. I am grateful to your Lordship 
for allowing me to make that point. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Slade, you were asking me whether I was intending 
to take a special verdict of some kind. I should like your views and 
assistance on the matter and also with regard to whether or not, assuming 
that I am against you on your submission, there is any question for the jury 
or whether it is purely a question of law for me on the facts. 

Mr. Slade: My Lord, I should respectfully suggest, as your Lordship put it 
tentatively to the Attorney-General, that this is a pure question of law 
for your Lordship. I took that view yesterday. I thought we were getting 
into the region of domicile when we were talking about “intent.” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Yes, Mr. Slade, I think that is right. 

The Attorney-General : My Lord, there is one other passage that I had 
intended to draw your Lordship’s attention to, but I mislaid the book. 
It does not carry the matter much further. It is on this question of passports, 
about which there is so little authority. In the tenth Volume of the 
Encyclopedia of English Law, at page 585, this is said about passports . 
“A passport is the accepted international evidence of nationality. In its 
usual form it certifies that the person described in it is a citizen or subject of 
the country by whose authority it is issued , and requests for him permission 
to come and go as well as lawful aid and protection. . . . The more familiar 

sense of the term is that of a document delivered by the Foreign Office or 
under its authority , requesting foreign governments to afford aid and pro- 


tection to the holder .” 

Your Lordship was referred to Mr. Sibley s article. That was written 
in, I think, 1907. You Lordship will remember that Mr. Sibley is the 
joint author with Lord Birkenhead of a book on international law. in 
that article he drew an analogy between the ordinary passport issued to an 
individual and a sea pass. In that quotation that I have just read ^o your 
Lordship reference is made to that, and the case was cited of a ship wrnen 
possessed a sea pass and was travelling under the flag of the State 
the pass related, and it was held in relation to such 
shipowner and the skipper were not allowed to impeach the validity o 
pass or to say that they were not of that nationality. , . , v 

Mr. Justice Tucker: I shall give my ruling on these s ^™ SSI< ?"f i^onany 
been made at two o’clock and, if necessary, then address the jury on any 


issue that remains for them. 



142 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


(Adjourned for a short time.) 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Mr. Attorney and Mr. Slade, I shall direct the jury on 
count 3 that on the 24th August, 1939, when the passport was applied for, 
the prisoner beyond a shadow of doubt owed allegiance to the Crown of 
this country, and that on the evidence given, if they accept it, nothing 
happened at the material time thereafter to put an end to the allegiance that 
he then owed. It will remain for the jury, and for the jury alone, as to 
whether or not at the relevant dates he adhered to the King’s enemies with 
intent to assist the King’s enemies. If both or either of you desire to address 
the jury on that issue, of course, now is your opportunity. 

Mr. Slade : My Lord, perhaps I might ask your Lordship just this point on 
that ruling. Count 3, 1 think, says : “by broadcasting .” I am respectfully 
submitting that the only evidence capable of going to the jury is the allegation 
that, within one month of the outbreak of war, Joyce broadcast that Dover 
and Folkestone had been destroyed. 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Coupled with the entries in the Work Pass, I think it is, 
which is signed by him, which purport to show the date upon which he was 
taken into the employment of the German Broadcasting Corporation, 
and some portion of his own statement where he says the purpose for which 
he went to Germany. 

Mr. Slade: My Lord, is not the count limited to “adhering to the King’s 
enemies by broadcasting propaganda ?” 

Mr. Justice Tucker : Those are all matters for the jury, Mr. Slade. 

Mr. Slade: If your Lordship pleases. Then I ought to address the jury, 
I think, just upon the point. I shall be a very few minutes. 

May it please your Lordship, members of the jury, the only point you 
have to consider, being directed as a matter of law that the prisoner did 
owe allegiance to His Majesty the King from the 24th August, 1939, and 
on all material dates thereafter, is whether he committed the offence with 
which he is charged in what has been called Count 3 of this indictment. 
That offence is that he adhered to the King’s enemies by broadcasting 
propaganda on behalf of the Germans. I think the limit of the offence 
— I have not the date in front of me — was the 2nd July, 1940. 

The only piece of evidence that I recollect being given of any broadcast 
of the words spoken to by Inspector Hunt, which he said he heard while 
he was at Folkestone at a date which he placed as being within the first 
month of the war : “Folkestone and Dover have been destroyed.” You 
may remember that I challenged his evidence upon that by suggesting that 
he had mistaken the voice which he heard. He was quite insistent that he 
had made no mistake ; but you will bear in mind that his evidence was that, 
although he had attended meetings at which Mr. Joyce had been present 
and said he was familiar with his voice, he had never at that time spoken 
to him. Therefore you have to consider, and my Lord will direct you that 
you have to consider, whether the Prosecution have proved beyond all 
reasonable doubt this one point, that it was Joyce who broadcast those 
words in the first month of the war. 

I cannot do better than ask you to do what the Attorney-General asked 
you to do at the outset of his opening of this case, to put aside from your- 
selves prejudice altogether. As he so truly remarked, Joyce will be all 
forgotten after a nine days’ wonder, or after some short space of time, but 
the way that justice is done in this country will not be forgotten. You 
may think that it is a tribute that, while we are now proceeding, at Belsen 
most of those Germans are being defended by British officers. 

I can well understand a person saying, “Don’t try him at all; shoot 
him without trial.” You may think that that would be one of the best 



The trial of william joyce 


143 


things to do. But what I do say is : If you are going to try him, try him, 
and do not make a mockery of the trial. You members of the jury have 
of course, a most difficult task. Joyce has been branded as “Lord 
Haw-Haw ; he has been branded as a traitor. Everyone talks of him as 
though he were already condemned and convicted, but you are here to 
try whether he is guilty or not. 

I have not called Joyce to give evidence. I have not contested that he 
broadcast the broadcasts that form the subject-matter of count 1 and 
count 2. I think there were various dates in 1943. In each of those cases 
Inspector Hunt was asked or given instructions to make a note of what 
he heard. He made a note, and he gave evidence of the precise things 
that Joyce said. Having got the precise things that he said, you can say 
whether he was adhering to the King’s enemies or not. Subject to what 
my Lord may say to you in his direction, that is not what you have to 
consider at all. I will assume against myself that in the years 1941, 1942, 
1943 and 1944 he was adhering to the King’s enemies. The only point 
that you now have to consider is whether he was adhering to the King’s 
enemies during the first month of the war. 


“Adhering to the King’s enemies” is what you heard called a mixed 
question of fact and law. As I suggest, the only evidence which is before 
you of any fact which he did which can be described as adhering to the 
King’s enemies by broadcasting propaganda, as I have told you, was the 
speech he is alleged to have made. No one, of course, suggests that 
Inspector Hunt would go into the witness-box and say what he did not 
honestly believe to be true. The only question is : Is he mistaken, or, as 
I would rather put it, are you satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that 
he could not be mistaken ? 

These are the points that I would ask you to bear in mind. You have 
heard the language that Joyce used in 1943 and 1944. It has all been 
given in evidence. However you may disagree with it or however you 
may have been amused by it, at any rate it is a reasoned statement — it is 
not the sort of statement which you would describe and that I describe 
as the grotesque statement, that in September, 1939, or may be up to the 
3rd October, 1939, Folkestone and Dover had been destroyed. There 
were no visits of aeroplanes to this country at that time; there were no 
atomic bombs ; there was nothing whatever to destroy Dover or Folkestone. 
There were no long-distance guns capable of coming from Germany to 
this country. The French coast was still in the hands of the French. It 
would have been a fantastic thing to say. It is suggested it would be a 
fantastic thing to say to those who were over here, but what about the 
British soldiers who were overseas and not here and might hear it at that 
time and would not know that it was untrue ? Well, you are entitled to 
use your own recollection of matters which are common knowledge. I 
don’t profess to remember how many British soldiers were overseas in 
the first month of the war. I don’t profess to remember. There may 
have been some; there may not. I don’t remember; but you will gather 
how likely it was that there was any great number of British soldiers 
overseas by the 3rd October, 1939. 

Moreover, if you are going to use a man as a broadcaster throughout 
a war which looks like lasting some time, if you want, at any rate, to give 
him the verisimilitude of a person that you could listen to, give him some 
semblance of appearance of a man you would listen to! I should think 
that it would be the worst possible thing from the Germans’ point of 
view and the worst possible thing from Joyce’s point of view to start his 
broadcasts to the British nation, not merely with a lie — because a lie might 
be given, as I say, a semblance of truth — but to start his career with a lie 



144 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


which was demonstrably and palpably false and which everyone must know 
to be false within forty-eight hours, even if they did not know it to be false 
at that moment. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to you, the probabilities 
are that he did not make that particular broadcast. 

Of course, it will be said, “Well, if he did not make that particular 
broadcast, why didn’t you put him into the witness-box to say so ?” Well, 
members of the jury, it is not for me to disprove the case ; it is for the 
case to be proved against me beyond all reasonable doubt. It is quite 
obvious that most of the relevant matters in this case Joyce is not and never 
has been in a position to deny. One of the most relevant matters was, 
of course, whether he signed the application for a passport; whether he 
signed the applications for renewals. Of course he did. There is no 
point in putting him into the witness-box to deny that. 

Another point is: Did he make the broadcasts in 1943? Of course 
he did. I cannot put him into the witness-box to deny that. You may 
think that the fact that he has not attempted to go into the witness-box 
to deny those things, at any rate would leave some semblance of character 
in him in that respect. The question for you is not whether he has gone 
into the witness-box to deny it, but whether, as I say, the Prosecution 
have proved it beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Now what doubt is there ? Let me remind you. The detective officer 
had heard Joyce speak; that is to say, had heard him speak in person. 
He had never spoken to him, but he had heard him speak. We are now 
dealing, are we not, with the first occasions on which he is ever alleged 
to have broadcast ? Voices do not sound the same when you broadcast 
and, at any rate, the first time you hear them when they are broadcast they 
do not sound the same as when you have heard them many, many times 
and you say: “Oh, Germany calling; that is Joyce’s voice.” Don’t forget 
that, the first time you heard “Germany calling,” you might not have 
recognised him. When you heard them for the thirtieth, fortieth or fiftieth 
time, the moment you heard the words, “Germany calling,” you would 
associate them with Joyce. 

What was the Inspector’s evidence about that ? He says, “I was in 
Folkestone; 1 don’t remember which station I tuned in to; I was just 
turning the thing round; I heard something more than the evidence I 
have given, but the only thing that I can remember having heard was just 
the words ‘Dover and Folkestone have been destroyed’.” I ask you, 
members of the jury, to say that you are not satisfied beyond all reasonable 
doubt that it was Joyce who used those words on that occasion. And I 
ask you to say furthermore that, if you are satisfied about that, contrary 
to my respectful submission to you, you are still not satisfied that the 
saying of those words constituted adhering to the King’s enemies. Every 
time you tell a lie to British subjects you do not adhere to the enemies of 
His Majesty the King. That is all he is alleged to have said. 

I will only say this once more and never say it again. I am sure that, 
in coming to a conclusion upon the evidence, as you are sworn to do, as 
to whether Joyce made this broadcast in the first month of the war, you 
will not allow your minds to be swayed by what he did in the second 
month of the war and, still less, the second year, third year, fourth year 
or fifth year of the war. 

You have now to take your minds back to the first month of the war 
and say whether you are satisfied of two things beyond all reasonable 
doubt ; one, that Joyce in fact made that broadcast at all and that Inspector 
Hunt is not mistaken ; and, two, that, if he made it, the mere broadcasting 
from an enemy radio station of the words “Dover and Folkestone have 
been destroyed” constituted adhering to the King’s enemies. Of course, 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 145 

if the mere broadcasting from a foreign station that, shall we say, “First 
Class” has won the Derby when you know that “First Class” has not 
won the Derby— if the mere broadcasting of that from Germany to England 
is adhering to the King’s enemies, then, I submit, it is equally adhering 
to the King’s enemies to say that Dover and Folkestone have been 
destroyed, and that is whether it is true, I suppose, or whether it is false. 
In my submission, you require something much more than a mere misstate- 
ment that Dover and Folkestone have been destroyed to constitute an 
adherence by a British subject or an alien who owes allegiance to the 
Crown of England to the King’s enemies for the purpose of amounting 
to treason. 

Now, members of the jury, there are only two more points, and I only 
propose to refer to them merely to get rid of them. My Lord reminds 
me that, in addition to the evidence of the actual broadcast in the first 
month of the war, there was a certain document, the Work Book issued 
to Joyce quite early on, and there were various other indications that it 
was the intention of the Germans to use him for the purpose of broad- 
casting; and his intention, I will assume against myself, was to be so used. 
But you do not adhere to the King’s enemies merely because you intend 
to do so in the future; that is to say, merely because he undoubtedly 
adhered to the King’s enemies — assuming this against myself— in 1942, 
1943, 1944 and 1945, it was his intention to do so in the future. You 
are not concerned with that, in my respectful submission. That is no 
criterion whatever that he was in fact adhering to the King’s enemies in 
the first month of the war, that is to say, September to the 3rd October, 
1939; and I ask you, therefore, to say — and I ask you to judge it entirely 
upon the evidence and to put all considerations of hostility and of dislike 
away from you, remembering the serious consequences of your verdict 
to this man, and putting out of your minds altogether everything that 
happened subsequently to the first month of the war — that you are not 
satisfied, firstly, that he ever made a broadcast which is entirely different 
to any other sort of broadcast he has ever been proved to have made 
since (namely, a silly demonstrable lie having no significance and one 
which can be contradicted absolutely, and contrary to some reasoned 
statement of, what I may call, the Fascist view— nothing of that kind); 
and, secondly, that, if you are satisfied of that beyond all reasonable 
doubt, you are not satisfied — again solely relating to this one period 
during the first month of the war— that in making that remark, namely 
that Dover and Folkestone had been destroyed, he at that moment — never 
mind what he did thereafter, but at that moment— adhered to the King’s 
enemies. 

The Attorney-General : May it please your Lordship, members of the jury, 
in this case the onus is fixed fully and firmly upon the Crown to satisfy 
you beyond reasonable doubt that this prisoner adhered to the King’s 
enemies between the 18th September, 1939, and the 2nd July, 1940, by 
broadcasting propaganda ; and I shall invite you to say that the mere act 
of broadcasting as an employee of the German radio system was an act 
of adhering to the King’s enemies, irrespective of the particular subject- 
matter of any particular broadcast. 

Members of the jury, that this man did broadcast is left beyond any 
doubt by his own statement, to which, in so far as it consists of admissions, 
you are entitled to refer. You will have an opportunity of looking at 
the whole of it, and my Lord will no doubt refer to it in the course of his 
direction which he is about to make. I shall only refer to three sentences. 
At the beginning, and by way of explanation, he says this; “I take this 
opportunity of making a preliminary statement concerning the motives 



146 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


that led me to come to Germany and to broadcast to Britain over the 
German radio service.” Then, “I did not wish to play the part of a 
conscientious objector and, since I supposed that in Germany I should 
have the opportunity to express and propagate views the expression of 

which would be forbidden in Britain during time of war And finally, 

“I am also able to understand the resentment that my broadcasts have, 
in many quarters, aroused.” Members of the jury, in the Work Book 
signed by the prisoner and acknowledged by him it appears that on the 
18th September, 1939, he was taken into the employment of the German 
Broadcasting Company as an announcer of English news. 

Members of the jury, the case does not stop there. In the evidence 
of Inspector Hunt you will remember that the Inspector said that, not only 
at the end of September or the beginning of November, 1939— he was 
not quite sure of the exact date — but on many subsequent occasions, both 
when he was at Folkestone, until the 11th December, and subsequently, 
in the course of 1940, he heard the prisoner’s voice, with which he was 
familiar, broadcasting on the German wireless. You are asked to discredit 
and reject the evidence of Inspector Hunt in regard to the actual terms of 
the broadcast which he heard at the end of September or early in October, 
to the effect that Dover and Folkestone had been destroyed; and you 
are asked to say that you are not satisfied that that broadcast was made 
because the making of it would have been a fantastic thing. Members of 
the jury, fantastic no doubt to people living in Dover or Folkestone, 
fantastic it may be to people living in this country at that time and knowing 
exactly how the war was progressing; but not quite so fantastic, do you 
think, to British soldiers, if you will, in the far-flung outposts of the Empire, 
to British garrisons abroad ? And not only to British soldiers but English 
people in foreign parts able to listen to the wireless propaganda of the 
Germans, but not able so readily perhaps to get accurate, immediate and 
first-hand knowledge of what actually was happening in England at that 
time? Members of the jury, you are entitled to remember what was 
happening in the course of the war at that time. It may not have been 
possible for Germany to destroy Folkestone or Dover as they had attacked 
other places in other parts of Europe, but you may think that, however 
fantastic those statements might have appeared to Inspector Hunt in 
Folkestone, their effect upon listeners in distant parts might have been 
of a very different kind. 

The onus in this case, as I said to you just now and as I said to you 
when I first addressed you on Monday morning, is firmly fixed upon the 
Crown, and the last thing that the Prosecution desires in this case is to 
exaggerate the facts or to stretch the law. The less you might consider 
the prisoner entitled to receive justice at the hands of a British court, the 
more vitally important it is to see that he secures justice, justice according 
to law and justice according to the evidence ; and if, when you have con- 
sidered the facts, you are left in any doubt, any real doubt, not any fantastic 
speculation — because nothing is capable of proof with absolute certainty — 
but any reasonable doubt as would affect you in your own affairs, then, 
of course, you will acquit him, and I would invite you so to do. 

Members of the jury, appearing as I do for the Crown in this case, 
I invite you to say that this case is far beyond doubt, and that it is your 
duty, in loyalty to your oaths, to find this man guilty of the offence of 
which he stands charged. 



SUMMING-UP 


Mr. Justice Tucker: Members of the jury, this prisoner, William Joyce, 
stands indicted on three counts in this indictment, and they all three charge 
him with the offence of high treason, but in somewhat different cir- 
cumstances. 

The first count charges him that “on the 18th September, 1939, and on 
divers days thereafter, and between that day and the 29th May, 1945, 
being then, to wit on the said several days, a British subject owing allegiance 
to our Lord the King,” omitting some formal words, “and during which 
time an open and public war was being prosecuted and carried on by the 
German Realm and its subjects against our Lord the King, then and on 
the said several days traitorously contriving and intending to aid and assist 
the enemies, did traitorously adhere to and aid and comfort the said 
enemies in parts beyond the seas without the Realm, to wit in the Realm 
of Germany, by broadcasting to the subjects of our Lord the King pro- 
paganda on behalf of the said enemies.” 

The second count charges him that “on the 26th September, 1940, 
then being a British subject owing allegiance to the King, during the progress 
of the war he traitorously contriving and intending to aid and assist the 
enemies did traitorously adhere to and aid and comfort the said enemies 
in parts beyond the seas without the Realm, to wit in the Realm of Germany, 
by purporting to become naturalised as a subject of the Realm of Germany.” 

Now, members of the jury, just a word or two about those two counts, 
because you have got to give your verdict on those two counts as well as 
on the third count. The essence of those two counts is that at the time in 
question the prisoner was a British subject owing allegiance to the King 
and owing allegiance as a British subject. Now, that was a matter for the 
Crown to prove and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt in some way or 
another. I ruled at the close of the case for the Prosecution that there was 
some prima facie evidence that he was a British subject because he had so 
stated in his application for passports, and accordingly the case proceeded 
on those two counts. Yesterday a volume of evidence was adduced before 
you, which you will remember, called by the Defence, all with a view to 
establishing that from the material date and in fact at all tirpes William 
Joyce, the prisoner, had never been a British subject at all ; by reason of 
the fact that he was born in America, born of parents one of whom, the 
father, was at that time a naturalised American subject. As soon as that 
became proved, there was an end of the case on the first two counts, because 
the essence of those counts is that the man was alleged to have been a 
British subject. The evidence was clear that this man at all material times, 
at those times, was not a British subject at all but an American subject. 

Now, members of the jury, that would have been a question of fact 
for you to decide on the evidence if the matter had been left to you ; that 
would have been a matter of fact and not of law to ascertain the facts, and 
it would then have been for me to say and direct you whether or not on 
those facts he was or was not a British subject. But when that overwhelm- 
ing mass of evidence had been put into the witness-box I invited the learned 
Attorney-General, representing the Crown in this case, to say whether or 
not, after he had heard that evidence and after he had refrained from 
cross-examining a single one of those witnesses (as you will remember was 
the fact), he was going to invite you as a jury to say that this man was a 
British subject ; and he said — what of course you would naturally expect 
him to say — that on that evidence he would not invite you so to hold. 

147 



148 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Unless he had said that, I should have expressed no view on the matter 
whatever, but left it to you ; it was only when he intimated that, having 
heard that evidence, he on behalf of the Prosecution was not going to 
invite you to come to the conclusion that this man was a British subject 
that I expressed the opinion that the evidence in that direction was over- 
whelming. You heard it, and no doubt you will be able to form your 
own opinion on that matter. Now, members of the jury, that being the 
case and as on that evidence the Crown do not ask for a verdict of guilty 
on those two first counts, the essence of which is the proof that the prisoner 
was a British subject, coupled with the further proof, of course, that being 
a British subject he had adhered to the King’s enemies — as the Prosecution 
recognise that they have failed to prove one of the essential elements 
necessary to a conviction under those counts, your duty is naturally to 
return a verdict of Not guilty on those two counts, because the Prosecution 
agree that there is no real, proper evidence on which you could possibly 
come to any such conclusion. You are sworn to decide this case on the 
evidence and on the evidence alone. 

Members of the jury, with those observations I pass to Count 3, which 
has been so much discussed yesterday and to-day. That count charges 
high treason by adhering to the King’s enemies elsewhere than in the 
King’s Realm, to wit in the German Realm, contrary to the Treason Act 
1351, and the particulars of the offence are that ‘'William Joyce on the 
18th September, 1939, and on divers other days thereafter and between 
that day and the 2nd July, 1940, being then, to wit on the several days, a 
person owing allegiance to our Lord the King, and whilst on the several 
days an open and public war was being prosecuted and carried on by the 
German Realm and its subjects against our Lord the King and his subjects, 
then and on the said several days traitorously contriving and intending to 
aid and assist the said enemies of our Lord the King against our Lord the 
King and his subjects did traitorously adhere to and aid and comfort the 
said enemies in parts beyond the seas without the Realm of England, to 
wit in the Realm of Germany, by broadcasting to the subjects of our Lord 
the King propaganda on behalf of the said enemies of our Lord the King.” 

Now, members of the jury, under that count there are two matters 
which have got to be established by the Prosecution and established by them 
beyond all reasonable doubt, and, so far as matters of fact are concerned, 
you have to deal with them and there is a direction that I have to give you. 
All matters of law, pure matters of law, are for me and for me alone; that 
is my responsibility. You have to take the direction in law from me, 
but all questions of fact are for you and for you alone ; and all the essential 
elements necessary to constitute the offence have got to be proved by the 
Prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt before you can convict the accused 
man. 

The first thing that the Prosecution have got to establish is that at the 
material time the prisoner William Joyce was a person owing allegiance 
to our Lord the King. 

Now, in my view I have already intimated (after hearing the very learned 
and very helpful submissions that have been made by both the learned 
counsel in this case) the conclusion that I have reached as a matter of law 
it is, if you as a jury accept the facts which have been proved in this case 
beyond contradiction — of course you are entitled to disbelieve anything if 
you wish — if you accept the facts which have been proved and not denied 
in this case, than at the time in question as a matter of law this man William 
Joyce did owe allegiance to our Lord the King, notwithstanding the fact 
that he was not a British subject at the material time. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


149 


Now, members of the Jury, although that is a matter for me entirely 
and not for you, I think it will be convenient if I explain quite shortly the 
reasons by which I have arrived at that view, partly for your assistance, 
and perhaps for consideration hereafter in the event of this case possibly 
going to a higher court. Members of the jury, the offence of treason is 
hundreds and hundreds of years old ; the very Act under which he is being 
prosecuted is an Act nearly six hundred years old— 1351. It has been 
amended from time to time, but that Act was only passed for the purpose 
of clarifying or endeavouring to clarify the then existing law, and it has 
been found to serve its purpose so far as I know for six hundred years without 
difficulty and certainly without recent amendment so far as the essentials 
of the offence are concerned. But facts and circumstances change as time 
advances; as travel becomes easier, as facilities for travel are extended, 
and so forth, the world in which we live is very different from the world of 
1350 or thereabouts, and it is necessary to apply the law, which never 
changes unless it is amended by Parliament, to the facts as they exist at the 
time with which one is dealing. 

Members of the jury, a man may owe allegiance in two different ways. 
A British subject owes what is called a natural allegiance; he carries it 
with him wherever he goes ; he cannot get rid of it ; he cannot cast it off, 
and, if he adheres to the King’s enemies anywhere, he is guilty of treason. 
A man who is not a British subject only owes allegiance as a result of having 
come within the King’s Realm and having thereby put himself under the 
protection of the King, as it is called. In these days that may mean the 
protection of a democratic form of government and the laws of the country; 
in primitive times it may have rested more on the executive protection that 
he received from the King himself or his immediate servants. But that 
appears to have been the basis of the allegiance which is owed by persons 
who are not British subjects by birth, and there can be no doubt or question 
but that an alien, an alien friend, owes allegiance to the Crown of this 
country so long as he is resident within the Realm. The question which 
has arisen in this case is whether or not an alien who has undoubtedly 
— undoubtedly — put himself under the protection and thereby acquired 
a status under which he owes allegiance to the Crown can divest himself 
of that allegiance by setting foot off the shores of this country, although 
in so doing he may still be availing himself of the protection which is 
afforded to British subjects by the issue of a passport— what has been 
picturesquely described by the learned Attorney-General as leaving this 
country wrapped up in the Union Jack. That is the issue in this case, and 
the fact that there has never been a case precisely like it is not conclusive 
one way or another. It is necessary to consider what is the fundamental 
law on the subject and then to apply that to the facts of a particular case. 

Now in coming to the conclusion 1 have, let me say at once there is 
one phrase used by the learned Attorney-General which is rather picturesque 
perhaps but which, I think, may be misleading and which l do not quite 
agree with ; and that is where he says that a man who leaves the country 
in this way armed with a British passport has thereby clothed himself with 
British citizenship. You cannot do that ; you are either a British citizen 
or you are not a British citizen ; you cannot become a British citizen by 
saying you are a British citizen. You cannot become a British citizen by 
carrying a British passport. There is no such thing known to our law as 
crime by estoppel; you cannot become a traitor by estoppel, as it is called. 
None the less I think it is the law that if a man who owes allegiance by 
having made his home here, having come to live here permanently, thereby 
acquiring allegiance as he undoubtedly does — if he then steps out oi this 
Realm armed with the protection which is normally afforded to a British 



150 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


subject (improperly obtained maybe, but none the less obtained) if he leaves 
this Realm, as the Attorney-General called it, wrapped up in the Union 
Jack, that is to say, using and availing himself of the protection of the Crown 
in an executive capacity which covers him while he is abroad, then in my 
view he has not thereby divested himself of the allegiance which he already 
owed. 

On the 24th August, 1939, beyond a shadow of doubt this man, who had 
come to England with his parents as a boy when he was three years old, 
according to the evidence called by the Defence, had lived in this country, 
according to the evidence of the police officer Hunt, for a number of years. 
He had taken active part in the political life of this country, which he was 
perfectly entitled to do, and then in 1933 he made application for a passport 
to enable him to leave this country if he so desired. We do not know 
whether he actually availed himself of that passport, but he got a passport 
and in the application dated the 4th July, 1933, he described himself as 
William Joyce, gave his address, said “Am a British subject by birth” — 
he gave his place of birth as Galway, which we now know was not accurate 
— and said that he required a passport for travelling to Belgium, France, 
Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Austria for the purpose of holiday touring, 
and, according to the statement issued on that passport, in the official 
part it says “Issued British Empire, Europe, etc. 5th July, 1933.” So 
he appears to have obtained a passport available in the British Empire, 
Europe, etc. As 1 say, whether he made use of that passport by going 
abroad then or not we do not know, but by 1938 the five years’ period 
had expired and on the 24th September, 1938, which was a significant date 
in the world’s history, he made an application for the renewal of that 
passport. The application for renewal does not have to state apparently 
the purpose for which it is required, as the original one did ; the application 
was made for the renewal of one year and the official form shows, “Renewed 
one period to the 1st July, 1939.” Again we do not know whether that 
passport was used or whether it was not. The application for renewal was 
made in 1938. Then on the 24th August, 1939, which was also approaching 
a vital date in world history, an application was made for renewal, and on 
both those applications the prisoner described himself as a British subject 
by birth and we know that a passport was accordingly granted to him. 

The passport appears to have received sanction on the 24th August, 
1939, the day the application was made. Precisely when it was issued we 
do not know and we have not seen the passport because that, of course, 
would be in his possession ; notice to produce has been given, but it is not 
forthcoming. But we do know what is the form of passports in existence 
at that time. The formal part of the document is in these words “We, 
Sir John Allsebrook, a Member of His Majesty’s most Honourable Privy 
Council” — then setting out his other Orders and titles — “His Majesty’s 
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs request and require in the 
name of His Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer 
to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford him every assistance 
and protection of which he may stand in need.” Members of the jury, 
it is a fact that by the comity of nations people armed with passports of 
that kind, by the courtesy it may be of foreign countries, receive the con- 
sideration and protection and so forth which is due to a subject of the state 
which has issued a passport of that kind. It is true to say that the protection 
afforded thereby is of an executive kind. I think it is a protection not 
giving him the protection of any law while he is abroad but giving him the 
protection which the Executive of this country will give by diplomatic 
action, or in extreme cases by going to war, because the treatment of a 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


151 


subject of one nation by another has before now led to war. That is the 
kind of protection which is afforded by a passport. 

Members of the jury, the next that we know of the prisoner William 
Joyce is that according to the Work Pass, which he admitted after arrest 
to be one of his possessions — that is a document which you will see when 
you retire and you will have to deal with it in another connection ; I am 
only dealing with the law of allegiance at the moment — that is a document 
which shows (and it bears his signature on the first page) under the heading 
of “Previous occupations of long duration, No. 4 : Editor and speaker, 
German Radio Company, Berlin-Charlottenburg, 19th September, 1939,” 
and on page 6 under the column “Name and place of concern: German 
Radio Company, Berlin-Charlottenburg. Date of beginning of employ- 
ment: 18th September, 1939. Nature of Employment: Announcer of 
English news.” That, according to the document which he admitted 
to be his property, which is called a Work Book and which bears his 
signature, appears to show that that was the capacity in which he was 
employed on the 18th September, 1939. So between the 24th August and 
the 18th September, 1939, armed with a British passport he had somehow 
or another entered Germany. 

Now, members of the jury, thereafter up until the 2nd July, 1940, when 
his passport ran out, he remained under such protection as that passport 
could afford him during his stay in Europe. Members of the jury, the 
application for the passport had not been confined to Germany ; so he was 
in possession of a passport which might, if he had so wished, have been of 
much more use to him perhaps at any rate if he had been a loyal subject 
in some neutral country than in Germany. I mention that only because 
it is said and has been said : “What kind of protection would an English 
passport be to a man in Germany after the war had broken out ?” Well, 
there may be a great deal of force in that observation, though even then 
there are rights which a belligerent nation is by International Law bound 
to extend to the civilian subjects of the country with which it is at war. 
But dealing with the protection which is in fact afforded by a passport of 
this nature I merely mention the fact that the passport — at any rate the 
application, and apparently the grant followed the application — in fact 
was a renewal of the passport which had been granted in 1933 and was 
available for the British Empire, Europe, etc. ; so he was not confined to 
Germany, of course, and was afforded protection throughout Europe, a 
protection which might have been a very real protection in some other 
country than Germany, you may think. 

Now, members of the jury, those are the facts upon which I have to 
decide whether or not this man at the material time owed allegiance to 
the British Crown, or rather, I prefer to put it, whether anything had 
happened to cause the allegiance which he undoubtedly owed on the 24th 
August, 1939, and had owed for years and years — whether anything had 
happened thereafter to bring that allegiance to an end. 

Now, members of the jury, many, many years ago the Judges who had 
to decide these matters in days when treason trials were much more frequent 
than they are now — there are numerous kinds of different treason — came 
to this conclusion (and I am reading from a book of great authority, 
East's Pleas of the Crown , in which it records what the decision was the 
Judges came to) : “ Local allegiance is that which is due from a foreigner 
during his residence here and is founded on the protection he enjoys for 
his own person , his family and effects, during the time of that residence . 
This allegiance ceases whenever he withdraws with his family and effects ; 
for his temporary protection being then at an end , the duty arising from it 
also determines . But if he only go abroad himself— leaving his family and 



152 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


effects here under the same protection , the duty still continues and , if he 
commit treason , he may be punished as a traitor ; and this whether his own 
sovereign be at enmity or at peace with ours. Therefore , if he aid even his 
own countrymen in acts or purposes of hostility , while he is resident here , 
he may be dealt with in the same manner. The above rule was laid down 
by all the Judges assembled at the Queen's command , on the 12 th January , 
1707.” 

Now, members of the jury, that was apparently what the Judges 
resolved, and that would be very considerable authority upon which I 
might act. But the matter does not rest there because that decision is 
recorded in this ancient book of great authority and, so far as I am aware, 
the accuracy of it has not been questioned. That gives added authority, 
if that were necessary, to the resolution arrived at by the Judges. It is 
perfectly true that in the cases that have been quoted to me, cases dealing 
with facts very different from the present, other definitions of treason have 
been given rather different from that and emphasising the essential of 
residence ; but, so far as I am aware no case has been cited to me, or no 
author at any rate, who has ever volunteered to say that the law in the 
terms as laid down there in East's Pleas of the Crown is wrong. 

Now, members of the jury, the same resolution really is referred to 
in another book of great authority, Foster's Crown Law , and there, reading 
from page 185, section 2: “An alien whose sovereign is in amity with the 
Crown of England \ residing here and receiving the protection of the law , 
oweth a local allegiance to the Crown during the time of his residence , and, 
if during that time he committeth an offence which in the case of a natural- 
born subject would amount to treason , he may be dealt with as a traitor. 
For his person and personal estate are as much under the protection of the 
law as the natural-born subject's and if he is injured in either he hath the 
same remedy at law for such injury." Then section 3 : “An alien whose 
sovereign is at enmity with us , living here under the King's protection , and 
committing offences amounting to treason , may likewise be dealt with as a 
traitor. For he oweth a temporary local allegiance founded on that share 
of protection he receiveth" Section 4 — and this is the material section — 
says: “And if such alien , seeking the protection of the Crown , and having 
a family and effects here , should during a war with his native country go 
thither and there adhere to the King's enemies for purposes of hostility , he 
might be dealt with as a traitor. For he came and settled here under the 
protection of the Crown ; and though his person was removed for a time 
his effects and family continued still under the same protection. This rule 
was laid down by all the Judges assembled at the Queen's command , \2th 
January , 1707.” 

Now, members of the jury, the force of that decision, twice reported 
in books of authority, is this : that, if correct, it shows at any rate that the 
physical presence of an alien in this country is not an essential ingredient 
to the offence of treason, because, according to that, he can be convicted 
of treason if he adheres to the enemy although he has left the realm, if 
his family and effects and so forth are receiving protection. If that is 
right, it shows at any rate that the submission of learned counsel for the 
Defence is not right to this extent, when he submits that this court can 
under no circumstances ever have any jurisdiction over a foreigner once 
he has left the shores of this country ; and it seems to me to indicate that 
the real basis of this law of treason is founded upon the protection which 
a man is receiving from the Crown to which he has acquired allegiance by 
residence, and I see no reason whatever why that allegiance and that 
protection should not cover him when he is away from this country caiTying 
the King’s passport, just as much as when he has left his ox and his ass 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


153 


behind in this country. Do not let me be misunderstood: there is no 
evidence whatever in this case that this man left his family or effects in 
this country. For a man of thirty-three to go abroad and leave his father 
and mother and brothers and sisters is not the kind of leaving a family 
behind which is referred to in those cases. I merely refer to those cases 
for the purpose of showing that in my view it is the protection which is 
one of the essentials to bring about — I will not say to bring about, but at 
any rate to preserve — the allegiance which has already become due from 
the foreigner by his adopting this country as his home and his residence. 

Now, members of the jury, at some length I have dealt with this matter 
as I thought it right for your proper understanding. I thought after the 
very able addresses that I heard on this subject from the learned counsel 
that it was only due to them that I should make known my views on this 
matter and the reasoning by which I have arrived at those views. I pass 
over the subsequent authorities and cases which have been cited which 
repeat and deal with the law, because in my view they are all dealing with 
different facts and different circumstances. Nothing is more misleading 
than to take an extract from a case dealing with certain facts and treat it 
as of universal application. You have got to find out what the principle 
of the thing is and then apply it to the facts with which you are dealing ; 
and in my view, if these statements of the law that I have referred to in 
East's Pleas of the Crown and Foster's Crown Law are right, 1 do not think 
that I am in any way extending the principles of the law in saying that a 
man, who in this way adopts and uses the protection of the Sovereign to 
whom he has already acquired an allegiance, remains under that allegiance 
and is guilty of treason if he adheres to the King’s enemies. 

Members of the jury, 1 accordingly pass from that aspect of the matter; 
that is my responsibility. I may be wrong ; if I am, 1 can be corrected. 
My duty is to tell you what I believe to be the law on the subject, and that 
you have to accept from me, provided you believe those facts about the 
passport, going abroad and so forth. If you do not believe that, you are 
entitled to reject it and say so, because you are not bound to believe 
everything; but, if you accept the uncontradicted evidence that has been 
given, then in my view that shows that this man at the material time owed 
allegiance to the British Crown. 

Now, if that is so, then the matter passes into your hands, and from 
now onwards I am dealing with matters which are your concern and your 
concern alone, with which I have got nothing to do. They are matters 
of fact, and the onus of proving those facts is upon the Prosecution from 
first to last and it never shifts. 

Now, what have they got to prove ? They have got to prove that during 
this period, as I have already indicated, this man adhered to the King’s 
enemies without the realm, namely in Germany; traitorously adhered to 
and aided and comforted the said enemies in parts beyond the seas by 
broadcasting to the subjects of our Lord the King propaganda on behalf 
of the said enemies of our Lord the King. Members of the jury, adhering 
to the King’s enemies and aiding and comforting them means nothing 
more than actively throwing in your lot with the enemy ; actively assisting 
the enemy. Put a little more elaborately in a famous case after the last 
war the jury were directed as follows (it was dealing with a British subject 
and therefore I am altering the words “British subject”) : “If a subject owing 
allegiance does an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies 
of the King in the conduct of a war against the King, that is, in law, the 
giving of aid and comfort to the King’s enemies.” Again, if a British 
subject commits an act which weakens or tends to weaken the powers of 
the King and the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King 



154 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


and the country, that is, in law, the giving of aid and comfort to the King’s 
enemies.” 1 All I need add to that is that it must be done with the intention 
of aiding the King’s enemies as well. A man must not only aid and comfort 
the King’s enemies, but he must do so with that intent and he must do so 
voluntarily. It does not mean if he is compelled by the Germans to do so 
by force majeure , but, if he voluntarily adheres to the King’s enemies or 
actively assists them with intent to assist them in a war against this country, 
that is adhering to the King’s enemies and giving them aid and comfort. 

Members of the jury, what are the facts about that ? Perhaps not so 
full as one could wish, covering the material part of the case, because in 
considering these matters you will confine yourselves, and be careful to 
confine yourselves, to the dates set out in this indictment, namely between 
the 18th September, 1939, and the 2nd July, 1940. Pay no attention 
whatever — put away from your minds altogether the evidence which has 
been given with regard to activities alleged against him under the other 
two counts, for this reason : this man was at any rate up to the time when 
he may have purported to become a German citizen, at any rate up to that 
time he was an American citizen ; although I have held that so long as he 
was under the protection of a passport he owed allegiance to this Crown, 
directly that protection ceased, ceased for good and all and he did not seek 
to renew it, he as an American citizen by the law of this country, at any 
rate by the law of treason, was entitled, as far as I know, to change his 
nationality and become a German with protection from Germany. There^ 
fore, do not put against him in considering his activities in this period when 
he held this passport anything he may have done thereafter, which, being 
an American citizen, he may have been entitled to do; and for the purposes 
of this case it is best to assume he was entitled to do. 

Now, members of the jury, what is the evidence with regard to what he 
did during this material time ? As I have said, it is perhaps to be regretted 
that you may not have had a little fuller information with regard to this 
than you have got. And I say that merely for this reason: that, while 
the police officer who gave evidence on this matter. Inspector Hunt, told 
you of one broadcast in which he recognised this man’s voice and said 
there were a number of others he heard at Dover or Folkestone or wherever 
he was down there during the late autumn of 1 939, one would have thought 
and hoped that it would have been possible perhaps to have known what 
was the contents of some of those other broadcasts, even if he did not 
remember them. But there it is ; you have got to do the best you can on 
the material that has been offered to you. 

Now, what did this man Inspector Hunt say ? He was a Detective- 
Inspector and he said that he had known the prisoner since 1934; he had 
not spoken to him but he had listened to him making political speeches 
from time to time, and he said he knew his voice. He said that on the 
3rd September, 1939, he was stationed at Folkestone and he was there till 
the 10th December, 1939. He said, “I then returned to London. While 
at Folkestone I listened to a broadcast. I recognised the voice immediately 
as the prisoner’s. It was during the first month of the war. He said 
Dover and Folkestone had been destroyed. There had not been any 
enemy activity at Folkestone at that time. I heard him again on the 
wireless on sundry occasions,” and then after he returned to London he 
took notes of it. Now that is the evidence of Inspector Hunt. It is for 
you to say entirely whether you accept it and believe it and rely upon it 
as fair identification of the voice of this prisoner. Those are all matters 
entirely for you, but in coming to your decision you are entitled, I think, 

1 This quotation is from the summing-up by Lord Reading in the trial of Roger 
Casement in 1916. It was thus during (and not ‘‘after”) the last war. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 155 

to have regard to that Work Pass that I have already referred to, the owner- 
ship of which he admitted, in which, you will remember, it was shown on 
page 6 that on the 18th September, 1939, he was employed as an announcer 
of English news by the German Radio Company, Berlin-Charlottenburg 9. 

Then, members of the jury, after this he had been apprehended in 
Germany in circumstances which you remember and which I need not 
refer to. He made a statement, and I need not read the first part of it 
because it is answers to questions which were put to him with regard to 
his nationality and we are not dealing with that aspect of the case now. 
It goes on: 

“I take this opportunity of making a preliminary statement concerning 
the motives which led me to come to Germany and to broadcast to Britain 
over the German radio service. I was actuated not by the desire for 
personal gain, material or otherwise, but solely by political conviction. 
I was brought up as an extreme Conservative with strong Imperialist 
ideas, but very early in my career, namely in 1923, became attracted to 
Fascism and subsequently to National Socialism. Between the years 1923 
and 1939 I pursued vigorous political activities in England, at times as a 
Conservative but mainly as a Fascist or National Socialist. In the period 
immediately before this war began I was profoundly discontented with the 
policies pursued by British Governments, first, because I felt that they 
would lead to the eventual disruption of the British Empire, and secondly, 
because I thought the existing economic system entirely inadequate to the 
needs of the times. 

“I was very greatly impressed by constructive work which Hitler had 
done for Germany and was of the opinion that throughout Europe and 
also in Britain there must come a reform on the lines of National Socialist 
doctrine, although I did not suppose that every aspect of National Socialism 
as advocated in Germany would be accepted by the British people. 

“One of my dominant beliefs was that a war between Britain and 
Germany would be a tragedy, the effects of which Britain and the British 
Empire would not survive and I considered that a grossly disproportionate 
influence was^exerted on British policy by the Jews who had their reasons 
for hating National Socialist Germany. 

“When in August, 1939, the final crisis emerged, I felt that the question 
of Danzig offered no just cause for a world war. As by reason of my 
opinions I was not conscientiously disposed to fight for Britain for 
Germany,” it reads, “I decided to leave the country, since I did not wish 
to play the part of a conscientious objector and since I supposed that in 
Germany I should have the opportunity to express and propagate views 
the expression of which would be forbidden in Britain during time of war. 
Realising, however, that at this critical juncture I had declined to serve 
Britain, I drew the logical conclusion that I should have no moral right to 
return to that country of my own free will and that it would be best to 
apply for German citizenship and make my permanent home in Germany. 
Nevertheless, it remained my undeviating purpose to attempt as best I 
could to bring about a reconciliation or at least an understanding between 
the two countries. 

“After Russia and the United States had entered the war such an 
agreement appeared to me no less desirable than before, for, although it 
seemed probable that with these powerful allies Britain would succeed in 
defeating Germany, I considered that the price which would ultimately 
have to be paid for this help would be far higher than the price involved 
in a settlement with Germany. This belief was strengthened from month 
to month as the power of Russia grew, and during the later stages of the 
war I became certain that Britain, ev en though capable of gaining a military 



156 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


triumph over the Germans, would in that event be confronted with a situa- 
tion far more dangerous and complicated than that which existed in August, 
1939 ; and thus until the very last moment I clung to my hope of an Anglo- 
German understanding, although I could see that the prospects thereof 
were small. 

“I know that I have been denounced as a traitor and I resent the 
accusation, as I conceive myself to have been guilty of no underhand or 
deceitful act against Britain, although I am also able to understand the 
resentment that my broadcasts have, in many quarters, aroused. Whatever 
opinion may be formed at the present time with regard to my conduct I 
submit that the final judgment cannot be properly passed until it is seen 
whether Britain can win the peace. 

“Finally, I should like to stress the fact that in coming to Germany 
and in working for the German radio system my wife was powerfully 
influenced by me. She protests to the contrary but I am sure that, if I 
had not taken this step, she would not have taken it either.” 

Now, members of the jury, that was the statement that he made. I have 
read it for you so that you may have it in your mind ; and you can see 
it if you wish. 

I think that is the whole of the very short material upon which you have 
to come to the conclusion as to whether or not it has been proved to your 
satisfaction beyond all reasonable doubt that during the period in question 
this man adhered to the King’s enemies, comforted and aided them with 
intent to assist them, and that he did so voluntarily. Those are the matters 
which you have to consider. 

You have heard what has been said to you by learned counsel about 
these broadcasts. Do you think it is essential for propaganda that it 
should either be false or true ? Propaganda may be true and some may be 
false, may it not ? Does it matter whether it is false or true if it is broadcast 
over the enemy radio system ? What is the purpose and object of a broad- 
cast from Germany in English ? What is the purpose of it ? To assist 
the Germans or to assist the English ? Those are all matters for your 
judgment and you will come to your conclusion thereon as you think is 
right and proper. 

Now, members of the jury, there are only one or two other observations 
that I want to make before parting with this case; and one of them is 
just this, one matter that I think 1 had better just clear right out of the way 
because it has got nothing whatever to do with this case. When this man 
was put up to plead on the first day of his trial he pleaded Not guilty to 
this indictment and then the learned Clerk following the practice of this 
Court said, “There is a further indictment against you.” At that stage 
I stopped him, because I think it is better to deal with one thing at a time. 
The jury are only concerned with the particular charge or indictment 
against the man ; he may even be prejudiced if it were known that there 
was some other indictment against him. In this case there can be no possible 
prejudice against him by reason of the other charge, and I am going to 
tell you what it is, so as to remove any idea you may get in your heads that 
there is any mystery or secrecy about the matter at all. He is charged 
in a second indictment with an offence under the Treachery Act, as it is 
called, of 1940. It is only an alternative way ; all the facts relied upon are 
exactly the same as in this case. It is nothing new, no new crime or fact; 
it is merely an alternative way of putting this matter, which may or may 
not have to be gone into according to the result of this case. I am only 
telling you that ; it is of no concern of yours whatever. I am only telling 
it to you so as to remove any false idea you may have in your heads that 
there was any secrecy or mystery about this second indictment. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


157 


Now, members of the jury, you have heard the whole of this case. 
You have had the assistance, if I may say so, of the admirable addresses 
you have listened to by the learned Attorney-General who has put the 
matter so fully before you. You have also had, and I have had, what I 
agree entirely to have been the distinguished assistance of Mr. Slade in 
this matter. Now, members of the jury, Mr. Slade may be for all I know 
having a very uncongenial task in this case, but how can justice be ad- 
ministered if people charged with these offences are not defended and are 
not defended by able and responsible counsel ? How can you get at the 
truth of any matter unless members of the Bar, acting in accordance 
with the highest traditions of the Bar, put their services at the disposal of 
men of all kinds and of all races, whatever the charge may be that is brought 
against them ? Members of the jury, some people sometimes talk about 
the law’s delays, and clamour for what is called swift justice. This case 
was postponed from the July sessions to the September sessions. Supposing 
it had, not been; what would have been the result ? Look at this mass of 
evidence that has been obtained from America and elsewhere with the 
assistance of those legal gentlemen who have put themselves at the service 
of this man, in order that you as a British jury may know the real and true 
facts before you arrive at your verdict. If there had not been, if I may 
say so, this proper adjournment of this trial, it would have been heard on 
incomplete evidence; and a jury might have very likely come to the 
conclusion that this man was a British subject when in fact he was nothing 
of the kind, because there had not been sufficient time for the quiet and 
unhurried collection of the material upon which a British jury should be 
directed to try a case of this kind — or of any kind. Members of the jury, 
those first two counts are of very grave importance and on those counts 
the evidence has come out favourable to the defendant and he is saved 
from those two counts, which may or may not in history be a matter of 
vital importance. I mention that, for the purpose of explaining to you 
how necessary it is that these matters should be considered on the evidence 
and that you should have the proper evidence ; people should not clamour 
merely for speed at all costs. 

Now, as you have been very rightly told and reminded — you have been 
told already once — William Joyce would play a very small part in the 
world’s history and that our demeanour, the way we comport ourselves 
in this case, is of greater importance to us than is William Joyce ; observa- 
tions that are very true. But I only add this : that it is not only the way 
we outwardly comport ourselves in the proceedings in this court, but it 
applies and applies with even greater force to the way you comport your- 
selves when you retire to consider your verdict, to be sure that you arrive 
at what you honestly believe to be a true verdict according to the facts, 
regardless of opinion or anything of that kind, and it applies to me in the 
very responsible decisions of law that I have had to come to in this case. 

Members of the jury, will you kindly retire now and with regard to 
Counts 1 and 2 I think, no doubt, having regard to the attitude taken by 
the learned Attorney-General, you will return a verdict of Not guilty. 
On Count 3 you will ask yourselves whether or not the case has been proved 
to your satisfaction beyond all reasonable doubt. If it has, you will say 
he is Guilty ; if it has not, and you are left in any kind of doubt about it, 
you will say he is Not guilty. Will you kindly retire and let me know how 
you find? 

(The jury retired to consider their verdict at 3.37 and returned into court at 

4 o'clock.) 



158 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


The Clerk of the Court: Members of the jury, are you agreed upon your 
verdict ? 

The Foreman of the Jury : We are. 

The Clerk of the Court : Do you find the prisoner William Joyce guilty or 
not guilty on the first two counts of this indictment ? 

The Foreman of the Jury : Not guilty, my Lord. 

The Clerk of the Court : Do you find him guilty or not guilty on the third 
count of high treason ? 

The Foreman of the Jury : Guilty. 

The Clerk of the Court: You find him guilty on the third count of high 
treason, and not guilty on the first and second counts; and that is the 
verdict of you all? 

The Foreman of the Jury : That is. 

The Clerk of the Court : Prisoner at the Bar, you stand convicted of high 
treason. Have you anything to say why the court should not give judgment 
of death according to law ? 

( Formal sentence of death was then passed,) 

The Chaplain: Amen. 



JUDGMENTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 1 

Lord Jowrrr, L.C. : My Lords, on 7th November, 1945, the Court of Criminal 
Appeal dismissed the appeal of the appellant, William Joyce, who had, on 
19th September, 1945, been convicted of high treason at the Central Criminal 
Court and duly sentenced to death. The Attorney-General certified under 
the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, s. 1 (6), that the decision of the Court of 
Criminal Appeal involved a point of law of exceptional public importance 
and that in his opinion it was desirable in the public interest that a further 
appeal should be brought. Hence this appeal is brought to your Lordships’ 
House. And, though in accordance with the usual practice the certificate 
of the Attorney-General does not specify the point of law raised in the 
appeal, it is clear that the question for your Lordships’ determination is 
whether an alien who has been resident within the realm can be held guilty 
and convicted in this country for high treason in respect of acts committed 
by him outside the realm. This is in truth a question of law of far-reaching 
importance. 

The appellant was charged at the Central Criminal Court on three 
counts, upon the third of which only he was convicted. That count was 
as follows: — 

Statement of offence: 

High treason by adhering to the King’s enemies elsewhere than in the 
King’s realm, to wit, in the German realm, contrary to the Treason Act, 
1351. 

Particulars of offence: 

William Joyce, on 18th September, 1939, and on divers other days 
thereafter and between that day and 2nd July, 1940, being then — to wit 
on the several days— a person owing allegiance to our Lord the King, and 
whilst on the said several days an open and public war was being prosecuted 
and carried on by the German realm and its subjects against our Lord the 
King and his subjects, then and on the said several days traitorously con- 
triving and intending to aid and assist the said enemies of our Lord the 
King against our Lord the King and his subjects did traitorously adhere 
to and aid and comfort the said enemies in parts beyond the seas without 
the realm of England, to wit, in the realm of Germany, by broadcasting 
to the subjects of our Lord the King propaganda on behalf of the said 
enemies of our Lord the King. 

The first and second counts, upon which the appellant was found not 
guilty, were based upon the assumption that he was at all material times a 
British subject. This assumption was proved to be incorrect; therefore 
upon these counts the appellant was rightly acquitted. 

The material facts are few. The appellant was born in the U.S.A. in 
1906, the son of a naturalised American citizen who had previously been a 
British subject by birth. He thereby became himself a natural-bom 
American citizen. At about three years of age he was brought to Ireland, 
where he stayed until about 1921, when he came to England. He stayed 
in England until 1939. He was then thirty-three years of age. He was 
brought up and educated within the King’s Dominions, and he settled 
there. 

On 4th July, 1933, he applied for a British passport, describing himself 
as a British subject by birth, bom in Galway. He asked for the passport 
for the purpose of holiday touring in Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, 
Italy and Austria. He was granted the passport for a period of five years. 
The document was not produced, but its contents were duly proved. In 

1 These judgments are included here by permission of the proprietors of the All 
England Reports. 


159 



160 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


it he was described as a British subject. On 24th September, 1938, he 
applied for a renewal of the passport for a period of one year. He again 
declared that he was a British subject and had not lost that national status. 
His application was granted. On 24th August, 1939, he again applied 
for a renewal of his passport for a further period of one year, repeating 
the same declaration. His application was granted, the passport, as 
appears from the endorsement on the declaration, being extended to 
1st July, 1940. 

On some day after 24th August, 1939, the appellant left the realm. 
The exact date of his departure was not proved. Upon his arrest in 1945 
there was found upon his person a Work Book issued by the German 
State on 4th October, 1939, from which it appeared that he had been 
employed by the German Radio Company of Berlin, as an announcer of 
English news from 1 8th September, 1 939. In this document his nationality 
was stated to be /‘Great Britain” and his special qualification “English.” 
It was proved to the satisfaction of the jury that he had at the dates alleged 
in the indictment broadcast propaganda on behalf of the enemy. He was 
found guilty accordingly. 

From this verdict an appeal was brought to the Court of Criminal 
Appeal, and I think it right to set out the grounds of that appeal. They 
were as follows: 

(1) The court wrongly assumed jurisdiction to try an alien for an 
offence against British law committed in a foreign country. 

(2) The Judge was wrong in law and misdirected the jury in directing 
them that the appellant owed allegiance to His Majesty the King during 
the period from 18th September, 1939, to 2nd July, 1940. 

(3) That there was no evidence that the renewal of the appellant’s 
passport afforded him or was capable of affording him any protection or 
that the appellant ever availed himself or had any intention of availing 
himself of any such protection. 

(4) If (contrary to the appellant’s contention) there were any such evi- 
dence, the issue was one for the jury and the Judge failed to direct them 
thereon. 

The Court of Criminal Appeal, as 1 have already said, dismissed the 
appeal, and it will be convenient if I deal with the grounds of appeal in the 
same order as did that court, first considering the important question of 
law raised in the second ground. The House is called upon in 1945 to 
consider the scope and effect of a Statute of 1351, the twenty-fifth year of 
the reign of Edward III. That Statute, as has been commonly said and 
as appears from its terms, was itself declaratory of the common law: its 
language differs little from the statement in Bracton: see 2 Bracton 258, 
Stephen's History of the Criminal Law of England , Vol. II, 243. It is 
proper to set out the material parts. Thus it runs : — 

Whereas divers opinions have been before this time [in what case treason 
shall be said and in what not ] ; the King , at the request of the lords and 
commons , hath made a declaration in the manner as hereafter followcth, 
that is to say: if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm , 
or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm , giving them aid and comfort 
in the realm or elsewhere . . . . 

then (I depart from the text and use modem terms) he shall be guilty of 
treason. 

It is not denied that the appellant has adhered to the King’s enemies 
giving them aid and comfort elsewhere than in the realm. Upon this part 
of the case the single question is whether, having done so, he can be and in 
he circumstances of the case is guilty of treason. 

Your Lordships will observe that the statute is wide enough in its 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


161 


terms to cover any man anywhere, “if a man do levy war . . Yet it 
is clear that some limitation must be placed upon the generality of the 
language, for the context in the preamble poses the question “in what 
case treason shall be said and in what not.” It is necessary then to prove 
not only that an act was done but that, being done, it was a treasonable 
act. This must depend upon one thing only, namely, the relation in which 
the actor stands to the King to whose enemies he adheres. An act that is 
in one man treasonable, may not be so in another. 

In the long discussion which your Lordships have heard upon this part 
of the case attention has necessarily been concentrated on the question 
of allegiance. The question whether a man can be guilty of treason to the 
King has been treated as identical with the question whether he owes 
allegiance to the King. An act, it is said, which is treasonable if the actor 
owes allegiance, is not treasonable if he does not. As a generalisation, 
this is undoubtedly true and is supported by the language of the indictment, 
but it leaves undecided the question by whom allegiance is owed and I shall 
ask your Lordships to look somewhat more deeply into the principle upon 
which this statement is founded, for it is by the application of principle to 
changing circumstances that our law has developed. It is not for His 
Majesty’s Judges to create new offences or to extend any penal law and 
particularly the law of high treason, but new conditions may demand a 
reconsideration of the scope of the principle. It is not an extension of a 
penal law to apply its principle to circumstances unforeseen at the time of 
its enactment, so long as the case is fairly brought within its language. 

I have said, my Lords, that the question for consideration is bound up 
with the question of allegiance. Allegiance is owed to their Sovereign 
Lord the King by his natural-born subjects ; so it is by those who, being 
aliens, become his subjects by denisation or naturalisation ( I will call them 
all “naturalised subjects”) ; so it is by those who, being aliens, reside within 
the King’s realm. Whether you look to the feudal law for the origin of 
this conception or find it in the elementary necessities of any political society, 
it is clear that fundamentally it recognises the need of the man for protection 
and of the Sovereign Lord for service. Protectio trahit subjectionem et 
subjectio protectionem. All who were brought within the King’s protection 
were ad fidem regis: all owed him allegiance. The topic is discussed with 
much learning in Calvin's Case. 

The natural-bom subject owes allegiance from his birth, the naturalised 
subject from his naturalisation, the alien from the day when he comes 
within the realm. By what means and when can they cast off allegiance ? 
The natural-bom subject cannot at common law at any time cast it off. 
Nemo potest exuere patriam is a fundamental maxim of the law from which 
relief was given only by recent statutes. Nor can the naturalised subjects 
at common law. It is in regard to the alien resident within the realm that 
the controversy in this case arises. Admittedly he owes allegiance while 
he is so resident, but it is argued that his allegiance extends no further. 
Numerous authorities were cited by counsel for the appellant in which 
it is stated without any qualification or extension that an alien owes 
allegiance so long as he is within the realm, and it has been argued with 
great force that the physical presence of the alien actor within the realm 
is necessary to make his act treasonable. It is implicit in this argument 
that during absence from the realm, however brief, an alien ordinarily 
resident within the realm cannot commit treason; he cannot under any 
circumstances by giving aid and comfort to the King’s enemies outside 
the realm be guilty of a treasonable act. 

My Lords, in my opinion this, which is the necessary and logical state- 
ment of the appellant’s case, is not only at variance with the principle of 



162 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


the law, but is inconsistent with authority which your Lordships cannot 
disregard. I refer first to authority. It is said in Foster's Crown Cases 
(3rd Edn., p. 183): 

Local allegiance is founded in the protection a foreigner enjoyeth for his 
person , his family or effects , during his residence here ; and it ceaseth whenever 
he withdraweth with his family and effects . 

And then (ibid,, at p. 185) comes the statement of law upon which the 
passage I have cited is clearly founded : 

Section 4. And if such alien , seeking the protection of the Crown , and 
having a family and effects here , should , during a war with his native country , 
go thither , and there adhere to the King's enemies for purposes of hostility , 
he might be dealt with as a traitor . For he came and settled here under 
the protection of the Crown; and \ though his person was removed for a time , 
his effects and family continued still under the same protection. This rule 
was laid down by all the Judges assembled at the Queen's command, 12 th 
January, 1707. 

The author has a side note against the last line of this passage. “MSS. 
Tracy, Price, Dod and Denton.” These manuscripts have not been traced 
but their authenticity is not questioned. It is indeed impossible to suppose 
that Sir Michael Foster could have incorporated such a statement except 
upon the surest grounds and it is to be noted that he accepts equally the 
fact of the Judges’ resolution and the validity of its content. This statement 
has been repeated without challenge by numerous authors of the highest 
authority — e.g., Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, 1795 Edn., East's Pleas 
of the Crown , 1803 Edn., Vol. I, p. 52, Chi tty on Prerogatives of the Crown, 
1820 Edn., pp. 12, 13. It may be said that the language of some of these 
writers is not that of enthusiastic support, but neither in the text-books 
written by the great masters of this branch of the law nor in any judicial 
utterance has the statement been challenged . M oreover it has been repeated 
without any criticism in our own times by Sir William Holdsworth whose 
authority on such a matter is unequalled: see his article in Halsbury's 
Laws of England, Hailsham Edn., Vol. 6, p. 416, note ( t ). 

Your Lordships can give no weight to the fact that in such cases as 
Johnstone v. Pedlar the local allegiance of an alien is stated without quali- 
fication to be coterminous with his residence within the realm. The 
qualification that we are now discussing was not relevant to the issue 
nor brought to the mind of the court. Nor was the Judges’ resolution 
referred to nor the meaning of “residence” discussed. In my view, 
therefore, it is the law that in the case supposed in the resolution of 1707 
an alien may be guilty of treason for an act committed outside the realm. 
The reason which appears in the resolution is illuminating. The principle 
governing the rule is established by the exception: “though his person 
was removed for a time his family and effects continued under the same 
protection,” that is, the protection of the Crown. The vicarious protection 
still afforded to the family, which he had left behind in this country, required 
of him a continuance of his fidelity. It is thus not true to say that an alien 
can never in law be guilty of treason to the sovereign of this realm in 
respect of an act committed outside the realm. 

My Lords, here no question arises of a vicarious protection. There is 
no evidence that the appellant left a family or effects behind him when he 
left this realm. I do not for this purpose regard parents or brothers or 
sisters as a family. But though there was no continuing protection for 
v his family or effects, of him too it must be asked whether there was not 
such protection still afforded by the sovereign as to require of him the 
continuance of his allegiance. The principle which runs through feudal 
law and what I may perhaps call constitutional law requires on the one 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


163 


hand protection, on the other fidelity: a duty of the sovereign lord to 
protect, a duty of the liege or subject to be faithful. Treason, “trahison” 
is the betrayal of a trust : to be faithful to the trust is the counterpart of 
the duty to protect. 

It serves to illustrate the principle which I have stated that an open 
enemy who is an alien, notwithstanding his presence in the realm, is not 
within the protection nor, therefore, within the allegiance of the Crown. 
He does not owe allegiance because although he is within the realm he is 
not under the sovereign’s protection. 

The question then is how is this principle to be applied to the circum- 
stances of the present case. My Lords, I have already stated the material 
facts in regard to the appellant’s residence in this country, his applications 
for a passport and the grant of such passport to him, and I need not restate 
them. I do not think it necessary in this case to determine what for the 
purpose of the doctrine, whether stated with or without qualification, 
constitutes for an alien “residence” within the realm. It would, I think, 
be strangely inconsistent with the robust and vigorous commonsense of the 
common law to suppose that an alien quitting his residence in this country 
and temporarily on the high seas beyond territorial waters or at some even 
distant spot now brought within speedy reach and there adhering and 
giving aid to the King’s enemies could do so with impunity. In the present 
case the appellant had long resided here and appears to have had many ties 
with this country, but I make no assumption one way or another about 
his intention to return and I do not attach any importance to the fact that 
the original passport application and, therefore, presumably the renewals 
also were for “holiday touring.” 

The material facts are these, that being for long resident here and 
owing allegiance he applied for and obtained a passport and leaving the 
realm adhered to the King’s enemies. It does not matter that he made 
false representations as to his status, asserting that he was a British subject 
by birth, a statement that he was afterwards at pains to disprove. It may 
be that when he first made the statement, he thought it was true. Of this 
there is no evidence. The essential fact is that he got the passport and I 
now examine its effect. The actual passport issued to the appellant has 
not been produced, but its contents have been duly proved. The terms of 
a passport are familiar. It is thus described by Lord Aiverstone, L.C.J., 
in Brailsford's case ( 1905 2 K.B. 730, at p. 745 ) : 

It is a document issued in the name of the Sovereign on the responsibility 
of a Minister of the Crown to a named individual , intended to be presented 
to the Governments of foreign nations and to be used for that individual s 
protection as a British subject in foreign countries. . . . 

By its terms it requests and requires in the name of His Majesty all those 
whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or 
hindrance and to afford him every assistance and protection of which 
he may stand in need. It is, I think, true that the possession of a passport 
by a British subject does not increase the Sovereign’s duty of protection, 
though it will make his path easier. For him it serves as a voucher and 
means of identification. But the possession of a passport by one who is 
not a British subject gives him rights and imposes upon the Sovereign 
obligations which would otherwise not be given or imposed. It is immaterial 
that he has obtained it by misrepresentation and that he is not in law a 
British subject By the possession of that document he is enabled to obtain 
in a foreign country the protection extended to British subjects. By 
his own act he has maintained the bond which, while he was within the realm, 
bound him to his Sovereign. The question is not whether he obtained 
British citizenship by obtaining the passport, but whether by its receipt he 



164 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


extended his duty of allegiance beyond the moment when he left the shores 
of this country. As one owing allegiance to the King he sought and 
obtained the protection of the King for himself while abroad. 

Your Lordships were pressed by counsel for the appellant with a dis- 
tinction between the protection of the law and the protection of the 
Sovereign, and he cited many passages from the books in which the 
protection of the law was referred to as the counterpart of the duty of 
allegiance. Upon this he based the argument that, since the protection 
of the law could not be given outside the realm to an alien, he could not 
outside the realm owe any duty. This argument in my opinion has no 
substance. In the first place reference is made as often to the protection 
of the Crown or Sovereign or Lord or Government as to the protection of 
the law, sometimes also to protection of the Crown and the law. In the 
second place it is historically false to suppose that in olden days the alien 
within the realm looked to the law for protection except in so far as it was 
part of the law that the King could by the exercise of his prerogative protect 
him. It was to the King that the alien looked and to his dispensing power 
under the prerogative. It is not necessary to trace the gradual process by 
which the civic rights and duties of a resident alien became assimilated 
to those of the natural-bom subject; they have in fact been assimilated, 
but to this day there will be found some difference. It is sufficient to say 
that at the time when the common law established between Sovereign Lord 
and resident alien the reciprocal duties of protection and allegiance it was 
to the personal power of the Sovereign rather than to the law of England 
that the alien looked. It is not, therefore, an answer to the Sovereign’s 
claim to fidelity from an alien without the realm who holds a British 
passport that there cannot be extended to him the protection of the law. 

What is this protection upon which the claim to fidelity is founded ? 
To me, my Lords, it appears that the Crown in issuing a passport is assuming 
an onerous burden, and the holder of a passport is acquiring substantial 
privileges. A well-known writer on international law has said (see 
Oppenheirris International Law , 4th Edn., Vol. I, p. 556) that by a universally 
recognised customary rule of the law of nations every State holds the right of 
protection over its citizens abroad. This rule thus recognised may be 
asserted by the holder of a passport which is for him the outward title of 
his rights. It is true that the measure in which the State will exercise its 
right lies in its discretion. But with the issue of the passport the first step 
is taken. Armed with that document the holder may demand from the 
State’s representatives abroad and from the officials of foreign Governments 
that he be treated as a British subject, and even in the territory of a hostile 
State may claim the intervention of the protecting Power. I should make 
it clear that it is no part of the case for the Crown that the appellant is 
debarred from alleging that he is not a British subject. The contention is a 
different one : it is that by the holding of a passport he asserts and maintains 
the relation in which he formerly stood, claiming the continued protection 
of the Crown and thereby pledging the continuance of his fidelity. 

In these circumstances I am clearly of opinion that so long as he holds 
the passport he is within the meaning of the Statute a man who, if he is 
adherent to the King's enemies in the realm or elsewhere, commits an 
act of treason. 

There is one other aspect of this part of the case with which I must 
deal. It is said that there is nothing to prevent an alien from withdrawing 
from his allegiance when he leaves the realm. I do not dissent from this 
as a general proposition. It is possible that he may do so even though 
he has obtained a passport. But that is a hypothetical case. Here there 
was no suggestion that the appellant had surrendered his passport or taken 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


165 


any other overt step to withdraw from his allegiance, unless indeed reliance 
is placed on the act of treason itself as a withdrawal. That in my opinion 
he cannot do. For such an act is not inconsistent with his still availing 
himself of the passport in other countries than Germany and possibly 
even in Germany itself. It is not to be assumed that the British authorities 
could immediately advise their representatives abroad or other Foreign 
Governments that the appellant, though the holder of a British passport, 
was not entitled to the protection that it appeared to afford. Moreover 
the special value to the enemy of the appellant’s services as a broadcaster 
was that he could be represented as speaking as a British subject and his 
German Work Book showed that it was in this character that he was em- 
ployed, for which his passport was doubtless accepted as the voucher. 

The second point of appeal (the first in formal order) was that in any 
case no English court has jurisdiction to try an alien for a crime committed 
abroad and your Lordships heard an exhaustive argument upon the con- 
struction of penal statutes. There is, I think, a short answer to this point. 
The Statute in question deals with the crime of treason committed within, 
or, as was held in R. v. Casement , without the realm; it is general in its 
terms and I see no reason for limiting its scope except in the way that I 
indicated earlier in this opinion, viz . : that, since it is declaratory of the 
crime of treason, it can apply only to those who are capable of committing 
that crime. No principle of comity demands that a State should ignore the 
crime of treason committed against it outside its territory. On the contrary 
a proper regard for its own security requires that all those who commit 
that crime, whether they commit it within or without the realm, should be 
amenable to its laws. I share to the full the difficulty experienced by the 
Court of Criminal Appeal in understanding the grounds upon which this 
submission is based, so soon as it has been held that an alien can commit, 
and that the appellant did commit, a treasonable act outside the realm. 
I concur in the conclusion and reasons of that court upon this point. 

Finally (and these are the third and fourth grounds of appeal to the 
Court of Criminal Appeal) it was urged on behalf of the appellant that 
there was no evidence that the renewal of his passport afforded him or was 
capable of affording him any protection or that he ever availed himself 
or had any intention of availing himself of any such protection, and if 
there was any such evidence the issue was one for the jury and the Judge 
failed to direct them thereon. 

Upon these points too, which are eminently matters for the Court of 
Criminal Appeal, I agree with the observations of that court. The docu- 
ment speaks for itself. It was capable of affording the appellant protection. 
He applied for it and obtained it, and it was available for his use. Before 
this House the argument took a slightly different turn. For it was urged 
that there was no direct evidence that the passport at any material time 
remained in the physical possession of the appellant and that upon this 
matter the jury had not been properly directed by the Judge in that he 
assumed to determine as a matter of law a question of fact which it was for 
them to determine. This point does not in this form at least appear to 
have been taken before the Court of Criminal Appeal and your Lordships 
have not the advantage of knowing the views of the experienced Judges of 
that court upon it. Nor, though the importance of keeping separate 
the several functions of Judge and jury in a criminal trial is unquestionable, 
can I think that this is a question with which your Lordships would have 
had to deal in this case, if no other issue had been involved. For it is clear 
that here no question of principle is involved. The narrow point appears 
to be whether in the course of this protracted and undeniably difficult 



166 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


case the Judge removed from the jury and himself decided a question of 
fact which it was for them to decide. This is a matter which can only be 
determined by a close scrutiny of the whole of the proceedings. 

My Lords, this is a task which in the circumstances of this case your 
Lordships have thought fit to undertake. I do not propose to examine in 
detail the course of the trial and the summing-up of the Judge, though I 
may perhaps be permitted to say that it was distinguished by conspicuous 
care and ability on his part. But having read the whole of the proceedings 
I have come to the clear conclusion that the Judge’s summing-up is not open 
to the charge of misdirection. It may well be that there are passages in 
it which are open to criticism. But the summing-up must be viewed as a 
whole and upon this view of it I am satisfied that the jury cannot have 
failed to appreciate and did appreciate that it was for them to consider 
whether the passport remained at all material times in the possession of 
the appellant. Upon this question no evidence could be given by the 
Crown and for obvious reasons no evidence was given by the appellant. 
It has not been suggested that the inference could not fairly be drawn from 
the proved facts if the jury thought fit to draw it and I think that they 
understood this and did draw the inference when they returned the general 
verdict of “Guilty.” This point, therefore, also fails. 

My Lords, I am asked by Lord Simonds to say that he concurs in the 
opinion which I have just read. 

[Lords Macmillan and Wright stated that they too were in agreement 
with the Lord Chancellor .] 

Lord Porter : My Lords, I have already stated that I agree with your 
Lordships in thinking that the renewal of William Joyce’s passport, 
obtained on 24th August, 1939, was evidence from which a jury might have 
inferred that he retained that document for use on and after 18th September, 
1 939, when he was proved first to have adhered to the enemy, and, therefore, 
I can deal with this part of his appeal very shortly. 

It is undisputed law that a British subject always, and an alien whilst 
resident in this country, owes allegiance to the British Crown and, therefore, 
can be guilty of treason. The question, however, remains whether an 
alien who has been resident here, but leaves this country, can, whilst abroad, 
commit an act of treason. The allegiance which he owes whilst resident 
in this country is recognised in authoritative text-books and the relevant 
cases to be owed because, as Hale {Pleas of the Crown (1778), Vol. I, p. 59) 
says, “the subject hath his protection from the King and his laws.” 

If then he has protection he owes allegiance, but the quality of the 
protection required has still to be determined. On behalf of the appellant 
it was strenuously contended that unless the alien was enjoying the protection 
of British law he owed no allegiance. My Lords, I think that this is to 
narrow the obligation too much. Historically the protection of the Crown 
through its dispensing power was afforded to the alien in this country 
earlier than the legal protection which came later. Therefore any protection, 
whether legal or administrative, would in my view be enough to require a 
corresponding duty of allegiance. 

It was said in the second place, however, that in no case could an alien, 
however long he had been resident here, commit an act of treason whilst 
he was abroad. This argument again seems to me to limit unduly the 
extent of his obligation. It is in contradiction of the resolution of the 
Judges in 1707, whereby it was declared that, if an alien who has been 
resident here goes abroad himself but leaves his family and effects here 
under the same protection, the duty (i.e., of allegiance) still continues. 
This resolution has been criticised as being merely the opinion of the Judges 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


167 


in consultation with prosecuting counsel, and not given as a decision in 
any case. The criticism is true, but the resolution has been repeated in 
text-book after text-book of high authority, and though not authoritative 
as a legal decision, it still has the weight of its repetition by great lawyers 
and the fact that it is nowhere challenged. Foster, Hale, East, Hawkins, 
Chitty and Bacon all set it out. Blackstone alone omits it, but Blackstone 
was giving a general view of the laws of England, and an omission to set 
out a particular extension of the general rule is not necessarily a denial of 
its existence. Equally the fact that many cases also state only the general 
rule in cases where no more is required is not a denial of the existence of 
certain modifications or extensions of it. 

It is true that even in the case with which the resolution deals the 
alien, though absent himself, is vicariously protected by the laws of this 
country in the person of his family and effects, but it is still no more than 
protection. Does then the possession of a passport afford any such 
protection as that contemplated by the rule ? I think it does. Even 
after war is declared, some protection could be afforded to holders of British 
passports through the protecting power, and, again, it would be useful and 
afford protection in neutral countries. In R. v. Brailsford, Lord Alverstone 
says (1905 2 K.B. 730, at p. 745), “// will be well to consider what a passport 
really is. It is a document issued in the name of the Sovereign on the respons- 
ibility of a Minister of the Crown to a named individual \ intended to be 
presented to the Governments of foreign nations and to be used for that 
individuals protection as a British subject in foreign countries ?” and the late 
Sir William Malkin in the Law Quarterly Review , Vol. 49, p. 493, speaks 
of “The extensive , though perhaps somewhat ill-defined , branch of inter- 
national law which may be called . . . ‘ the diplomatic protection of citizens 
abroad .’ ” 

It must be remembered that the matter to be determined is not whether 
the appellant took upon himself a new allegiance, but whether he continued 
an allegiance which he had owed for some twenty-four years, and a lesser 
amount of evidence may be required in the latter than in the former case. 

I cannot think that such a resident can in wartime pass to and fro from this 
country to a foreign jurisdiction and be permitted by our laws to adhere to 
the enemy there without being amenable to the law of treason. I agree 
with your Lordships also in thinking that if an alien is under British 
protection he occupies the same position when abroad as he would occupy 
if he were a British subject. Each of them owes allegiance, and in so 
doing each is subject to the jurisdiction of the British Crown, 

“The law of nations/' says Oppenheim {International Law , 5th Edn., 
Vol. 1, p. 266), “does not prevent a State from exercising jurisdiction within 
its own territory over its subjects travelling or residing abroad, since they re- 
main under its personal supremacy.” Moreover, in R. v. Casement , the point 
was directly decided in the case of a British subject who committed the act 
of adhering to the King‘s enemies abroad, and the decision was not seriously 
controverted before your Lordships. But, my Lords, though the renewing 
of a passport might in a proper case lead to the conclusion that the 
possessor, though absent from the country, continued to owe allegiance 
to the British Crown, yet in my view the question whether that duty was 
still in existence depends upon the circumstances of the individual case 
and is a matter for the jury to determine. In the present case, as I under- 
stand him, the Judge ruled that in law the duty of allegiance continued 
until the protection given by the passport came to an end — i.e., in a year’s 
time— or at any rate until after the first act of adhering to the enemy, 
which I take to be the date of the appellant’s employment as broadcaster 
by the German State on 18th September, 1939. 



168 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


The Court of Criminal Appeal take, I think, the same view, but since 
your Lordships, as I understand, think otherwise, I must set out the facts 
as I see them. The appellant, admittedly an American subject, but resident 
within this realm for some twenty-four years, applied for and obtained a 
passport, as a British subject, in 1933. This document continued to be 
effective for five years, and was renewed in 1938 and again on 24th August, 
1939. Extensions are normally granted for one year, and that given to 
the appellant followed the normal course. It would, I think, not be an 
unnatural inference that he used it in leaving England and entering Germany, 
but in fact nothing further was proved as to the appellant’s movements, 
save that his appointment as broadcaster by the German State, dated 
18th September, 1939, was found in his possession when he was captured, 
and that at any rate by 10th December he had given his first broadcast. 
Nothing is known as to the passport after its issue, and it has not since been 
found. 

My Lords, for the purpose of establishing what the Judge’s ruling was, 
I think it necessary to quote his own words to the representatives of the 
Crown and of the prisoner before they addressed the jury. They are as 
follows : 

I shall direct the jury on count 3 (the only material count) that on 24 th 
August , 1939, when the passport was applied for , the prisoner beyond a 
shadow of doubt owed allegiance to the Crown of this country and that on the 
evidence given , if they accept it , nothing happened at the material time 
thereafter to put an end to the allegiance tthat he then owed. It will remain 
for the jury , and for the jury alone , as to whether or not at the relevant 
dates he adhered to the King's enemies with intent to assist the King's enemies. 
If both or either of you desire to address the jury on that issue , of course , 
now is your opportunity. 

After that ruling both counsel proceeded to address the jury, the 
Defence submitting that the appellant had not adhered to the King’s 
enemies, the Attorney-General that he had. No other topic was touched 
upon by either of them, and in particular no argument was addressed to the 
question whether the appellant still had the passport in his possession and 
retained it for use or as to whether he still owed allegiance to the British 
Crown. After counsel’s address to the jury the Judge summed up, and 
again I think I must quote some passages from his observations. 

One such is : 

Under that count (i.e., count 3) there are two matters which have got to 
be established by the Prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. . . . The 
first thing that the Prosecution have to establish is that at the material time 
the prisoner , William Joyce , was a person owing allegiance to our Lord the 
King. . . . My view , / have already intimated ... as a matter of law is , 
if you as a jury accept the facts which have been proved in this case beyond 
contradiction — of course you are entitled to disbelieve anything you wish — 
if you accept the facts which have been proved and not denied in this case f 
then at the time in question , as a matter of law , this man William Joyce 
did owe allegiance to our Lord the King , notwithstanding the fact that he 
was not a British subject at the material time. Now , members of the jury , 
although that is a matter for me entirely and not for you , I think it will be 
convenient if I explain quite shortly the reasons by which I have arrived at 
that view , partly for your assistance , explanation , and perhaps for consideration 
hereafter in the event of this case possibly going to a higher court . 

Again he said : 

None the less I think it is the law that if a man who owes allegiance by having 
made his home here , having come to live here permanently , thereby acquiring 
allegiance , as he undoubtedly does , if he then steps out of this realm armed with 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


169 


the protection which is normally afforded to a British subject — improperly 
obtained , it may be, but none the less obtained . . . using and availing himself 
of the protection of the Crown in an executive capacity which covers him 
while he is abroad, then in my view he has not thereby divested himself of 
the allegiance which he already owed . 

Later he says : 

So between 24th August and 18th September, 1939, armed with a British 
passport, he had somehow entered Germany. Now, members of the jury, 
thereafter up until 2nd July , 1940, when his passport ran out , he remained 
under such protection as that passport could afford him during his stay in 
Europe . 

Once again he says : 

Ido not think I am in any way extending the principles of the law in saying 
that a man who in this way adopts and uses the protection of the sovereign 
to whom he has already acquired an allegiance remains under that allegiance 
and is guilty of treason if he adheres to the King's enemies. 

Members of the jury , I accordingly pass from that aspect of the matter ; 
that is my responsibility. I may be wrong ; if I am I can be corrected. 
My duty is to tell you what I believe to be the law on the subject and that you 
have to accept from me, provided you believe those facts about the passport, 
going abroad and so forth. If you do not believe that , you are entitled to 
reject it and say so, because you are not bound to believe everything, but 
if you accept the uncontradicted evidence that has been given, then in my 
view that shows that this man at the material time owed allegiance to the 
British Crown. 

Now if that is so, then the matter passes into your hands, and from now 
onwards I am dealing with matters which are your concern and your concern 
alone, with which I have got nothing to do ; they are matters of fact, and the 
onus of proving those facts is upon the Prosecution from first to last, and it 
never shifts. 

Now what have they got to prove ? They have got to prove that during 
this period, as I have already indicated, this man adhered to the King's 
enemies without the realm, namely, in Germany. 

The Judge then refers to a broadcast, of which there was uncontradicted 
evidence that it had been made before 10th December, 1939, to the prisoner’s 
engagement as a German broadcaster to Britain, and to the prisoner’s 
statement, which was put in evidence by the Crown and from which I 
need only quote the words : 

Realising, however, that at this critical juncture I had declined to serve 
Britian, I drew the logical conclusion that I should have no moral right to 
return to that country of my own free will and that it would be best to apply 
for German citizenship and make my permanent home in Germany. 

After reading the statement the Judge added: 

I think that is the whole of the very short material upon which you have 
to come to the conclusion as to whether or not it is proved to your satisfaction 
beyond all reasonable doubt that during the period in question this man adhered 
to the King's enemies, comforted and aided them with intent to assist them, 
and that he did so voluntarily. Those are the matters which you have to 
consider. 

My Lords, I have read and re-read the summing-up as a whole, and I 
think I have quoted all the material passages from it. Whether I pay 
regard to its general import or confine myself to the particular passages 
set out above, I cannot read the words of the Judge as doing other than 
ruling that in law the appellant continued to owe allegiance to His Majesty, on 
18th September, 1939, on 10th December, 1939, and, indeed, until 2nd July, 
1940, and leaving to the jury only the question whether during this period 



170 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


the appellant adhered to the King’s enemies. The passage in the summing- 
up contained the words “provided you believe those facts about the passport, 
going abroad and so forth” in my opinion merely instructed the jury that 
they had to be satisfied that the accused man did obtain a renewal of his 
passport, did go abroad, and did make a statement, but that if they were 
so satisfied, then in law the prisoner continued to owe allegiance at all 
material times after he left this country. If it means more than this, I 
should regard it as a totally inadequate direction as to what must be proved 
in order to show that the allegiance continued after he left this country. 
But I do not think it does mean more than I have indicated. 

As I have stated, the renewal of the passport on 24th August, 1939, was, 
in my view, evidence from which a jury might infer the continuance of the 
duty of allegiance. What the Prosecution have to show is that that duty 
continued at least until 18th September. The Judge, as I see it, regards the 
renewal as proving conclusively that the duty continued until the passport 
ceased to be valid, unless some action on the part of the Crown or the 
appellant was proved which would put an end to its protection. The 
Court of Criminal Appeal, in my opinion, took the same view. Their 
words are : 

We have to look at the evidence in this case and upon that evidence to 
decide whether the trial Judge was right or wrong in holding as a matter of 
law that on 18th September , 1939, and between that date and 2nd July , 1940, 
this appellant did owe allegiance to the King. We agreed with Tucker , /., 
that the proper way of approaching that question is to see whether anything 
had happened between 24th August , and 18th September , to divest the appellant 
of that duty of allegiance which he unquestionably owed at the earlier of those 
dates. 

This ruling, as I see it, can only mean that the appellant’s duty of 
allegiance remained in force until 2nd July, 1940, unless it was shown by him 
or on his behalf that something had occurred to put an end to that duty. 
It puts the onus on him to show some action terminating that obligation. 
The passport was never found again, and he may have used it only to gain 
admittance to Germany and may then have discarded it. Indeed, his 
statement, if believed, indicates that this was his object, and the mere fact 
that the renewal was for a year proves nothing, since, as was proved in 
evidence, that is the normal period of extension. There is no evidence 
that he kept it for use on or after 18th September. If I thought that the 
obtaining of the passport on 24th August proved in law that the appellant 
retained it for use at least until 18th September, unless he was shown to have 
withdrawn his allegiance, I should accept this ruling. But I do not think 
it correct. It could only be supported on the ground that allegiance 
continues until the appellant shows that it is terminated. 

The Attorney-General supported this contention by a reference to 
Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice , 3 1st Edition, at page 330, 
where it is stated that if a matter be within the knowledge of the accused 
and unknown to the Crown the onus of proof is cast upon the former. 
For this proposition R. v. Turner is said to be an authority. But that case 
has been explained as dependent upon the special provisions of the Game 
Laws, and as being, therefore, not of general application. The true 
principle is, I think, set out in Phipson on Evidence , 8th Edition, page 34, 
and Best on Evidence , 12th Edition, page 252, and is explained by Holroyd, J. 
(himself a party to the judgment in R. v. Turner ), in R. v. Burdett : 

[The rule in question] is not allowed to supply the want of necessary proof 
whether direct or presumptive , against a defendant of the crime with which 
he is charged , but when such proof has been given , it is a rule to be applied 
in considering the weight of evidence against him , whether direct or presumptive , 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


171 


when it is unopposed , unrebutted y or not weakened by contrary evidence , 
which it would be in the defendant's power to produce , if the fact directly 
or presumptively proved were untrue . 

If this be the true principle, the failure of the prisoner to give evidence 
as to his dealing with the passport goes to increase the weight of the evidence 
against him, but does not make the evidence of his applying for and receiving 
it proof conclusive in law that he continued to retain it for use or at ail. 
That he received it may be some proof to go to the jury that he retained 
it, but it is no more ; it is not a matter upon which a court is entitled to 
rule that a jury must draw the inference that he retained his allegiance. 
Indeed, at one point in his argument the Attorney-General used language 
which, in my view, accepted this as the true principle when he said : 

I put the passport merely as evidence of the existence of protection. If 
he (/.e., the accused) discarded it on his return that might make a difference. 

To this observation I would merely add that the renewal of the passport 
was at best but some evidence from which a jury might infer that the duty of 
allegiance was still in existence. Unless, however, the accused man 
continued to retain it for use as a potential protection, the duty of allegiance 
would cease, and it was for the jury to pronounce upon this matter. 

I do not understand your Lordships to rely upon the proviso to section 
4 of the Criminal Appeal Act, nor do I think it could be said that no sub- 
stantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, if I am right in considering 
that the matter should have been left to the jury. The test has been laid 
down by your Lordships’ House to be whether a reasonable jury properly 
directed must have come to the same conclusion. In the present case a 
reasonable jury properly directed might have considered that the allegiance 
had been terminated. Against the mere receipt of the passport there has 
to be set the fact that its possession was at least desirable if not necessary 
to enable the accused man to proceed to Germany from this country, 
the fact that it was not found in his possession again or anything further 
known of it, his statement as to his intention of becoming naturalised in 
Germany and his acceptance of a post from the German State. At any 
rate these were matters for a jury properly directed to consider. They were 
not directed on them and, as I have stated in my view, they were told that 
the matter was one of law and not for them. 

My Lords, the question of the extent £o which an alien long resident 
in this country continues to owe allegiance after he has left it and whether 
the request for and acceptance of a passport makes the duty of allegiance 
still due until the protection of that passport ceases by effluxion of time or 
at least for some period after its issue is, and has been certified to be, a 
point of law of exceptional public importance. One matter to be decided 
in solving that question is the boundary line between the functions of a 
Judge and those of a jury. Apart from this the principle that questions 
which are rightly for the jury should be left to them and that a proper 
direction should be given is, as I think, also of great public importance. 
The one matter concerns this country only in the exigencies of war, though 
then no doubt it is of vital importance : the other is a necessary element 
in the true administration of the law in all times of peace and war. If 
the safety of the realm in wartime requires action outside the ordinary rule 
of law, it can be secured by appropriate measures such as a Defence of 
the Realm Act, but the protection of subject or foreigner afforded through 
trial by jury and the due submission to the jury of matters proper for their 
consideration is important always, but never more important than when 
the charge of treason is in question. 

For these reasons I would myself have allowed the appeal. 



172 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


OTHER RECENT TRIALS 

Readers of the following brief accounts of some twenty or thirty trials of British 
subjects accused of assisting the enemy in the war will note that, even when 
their offences seem to be largely the same, the charges brought against them 
fall into two categories: (1) high treason, and offences against the Treachery 
Act of 1940; and (2) offences against the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, 
the relevant section of which, 2 A, reads thus : “If, with intent to assist any 
enemy, any person does any act which is likely to assist an enemy or to prejudice 
the public safety, the defence of the realm or the efficient prosecution of war, 
then, without prejudice to the law relating to treason, he shall be guilty of an 
offence against this Regulation and shall, on conviction on indictment, l?e 
liable to penal servitude for life.’* 

The all-important distinction between the two classes of offence lies, not 
in the acts alleged against the prisoner, but in the penalty. Only one sentence 
can be passed on a man convicted of treason or “treachery” — death. The law 
knows no lesser penalty for these offences, and neither the trial Judge nor the 
Court of Criminal Appeal can pass one. But in the case of a breach of the 
Defence Regulation, while penal servitude for life is the maximum sentence, the 
Court is empowered to substitute for it any shorter term of imprisonment or 
even, as happened more than once, a mere bind-over. So in effect, where the 
authorities decided to indict a man for treason, he could not hope if found 
guilty (and there was usually little chance of any other verdict) to escape the 
scaffold except by a reprieve. But there were many cases where the prisoner’s 
offence, gross though it was, was mitigated by youth or foolishness or even the 
small importance of his assistance to the enemy ; in such cases, it will be seen, the 
Defence Regulations were made the basis of the charge. 

The authorities certainly exercised their discretion most reasonably and 
even mercifully, but it was and remains unsatisfactory and contrary to the 
spirit of English judicial procedure that the decision of an executive department 
should thus pre-judge a prisoner’s fate. And it must have been a most unpleasant 
task for that department to undertake. This seems an additional argument 
for a change in the law which, on a conviction for treason as for murder, 
would permit in proper cases a verdict which did not entail the full rigour of 
capital punishment. 

r 

(1) Jack Alcock 

This 32-year-old Flight-Sergeant in the R.A.F., an air-gunner from Man- 
chester, was court-martialled at Uxbridge in August 1945. The Prosecution 
stated that, after baling out on a flight over Mannheim, he voluntarily gave the 
Germans information about R.A.F. types and formations, tried to persuade 
fellow-prisoners to do the same and, finally, “when it was his duty to use his 
utmost endeavours to escape, he improperly accepted a parole from the German 
authorities.” 

A police officer produced a long statement made by Alcock on his return 
to London in May, 1945, and a German officer was brought over to identify 
him as having been selected to work for the Germans. 

He was sentenced to two years’ hard labour and discharge with ignominy 
from the Service. 


(2) John Amery 

This ne'er-do-well offshoot of a distinguished English family, who was 33 
years old when he was tried for high treason at the Old Bailey, had come into 
contact with the police more than once before the war. He was in Spain during 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


173 


some part of the Civil War and afterwards went to France in 1940. His later 
adventures are set out at length, if not wholly accurately, in a statement which 
will be reproduced later. He was arrested in Italy by local “co-belligerents,” 
in April, 1945, handed over to the British troops and flown to England. 

He was charged before the Chief Magistrate, Sir Bertrand Watson, at Bow 
Street, on 30th July, 1945, with high treason in Germany and Italy from the 
22nd June, 1941, to his arrest on the 25th April, 1945. 

Evidence at this preliminary hearing showed that he had urged British 
prisoners of war and internees in France and elsewhere to join a Nazi-sponsored 
force called “The Legion of St. George,” which was, he said, to fight against 
the Bolshevists but not against the British. In a manifesto he issued on the 
20th April, 1943, he declared that 150,000 people were in jail in Britain because 
they refused to take up arms in the “fratricidal war” against Germany ! Other 
paragraphs of this idiotic (but undoubtedly treasonable) document read: 

“Hundreds of soldiers have volunteered to join the Legion and many R. A.F. 
aeroplanes are coming over to us. 

“It is up to you civilians to take a hand to show we intend giving the world 
proof that we are not all sold out to the Jew and the plutocrat. The world is 
watching us. Europe expects every civilised man will do his duty. National 
England desires that you will show yourselves worthy of Nelson’s immortal 
signal. 

“We are going to write a new page in the history of the British Empire. 
Englishmen never, never will be slaves of the plutocrat tyranny. Pay no 
attention to opposition. In these vital days when we are before the bar of 
civilisation I beg and demand that we should put aside all hesitation, lies and 
prejudice that led us to where we are, and take this immense opportunity which 
I have obtained, and with me and by me and all those who have already joined, 
that you will opt National for England and St. George.” 

British, French and Belgian witnesses were called by the Prosecution. 
A private in the Black Watch said that, when Amery invited him in a French 
prisoner-of-war camp to join the Legion, he struck at Amery and was punished 
for this by being put on bread and water for four days and confined to a cell 
for three weeks. Two civilian internees stated that Amery had told them of 
British aeroplanes joining the Legion, while a third said that Amery claimed 
to be acting both for a committee in England and for the Vichy Government. 
Amery wished to shake hands with him, said this witness, but “I told him I 
was not in the habit of shaking hands with traitors, and walked out.” These 
and other witnesses said that Amery was booed and hustled when he made 
approaches to prisoners — which recalls that the same thing happened to Roger 
Casement in the last war when he sought to enlist Irish prisoners of war in his 
German-sponsored “Irish Brigade.” 

Other witnesses told of Amery’s speeches in Antwerp and in Paris, in which 
he hysterically abused British policy and British politicians, cried “ Vive Hitler !” 
and declared himself a true patriot in that he wished Britain to become allied 
with Nazi Germany against Bolshevist Russia. Evidence was also given about 
some of his broadcast speeches, which — as many listeners in this country will 
remember — were screeching, incoherent rodomontades; he was, however, 
introduced by the German radio announcers with portentous solemnity as a 
person of outstanding importance in British affairs. 

Statements by Amery were put in, including one in which he described a 
visit to Quisling in Norway, who “was kind enough to say that my activity 
was a great help to him and other friends of Germany.” The main exhibit 
was a long document which he typed and signed for the British authorities in 
Italy after his arrest. Portions of it were as follows: 

“After a youthful career which was somewhat chequered, and which ended 
in my bankruptcy in the early months of 1937, 1 went to Europe, and practically 



174 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


left England definitely except for some occasional visits. In Spain, in France, 
and particularly with the French politician Jacques Doriot, I extensively studied 
Communism. This led me to Austria, Czechoslovakia, and various other 
countries, including Italy and Germany. At the outbreak of the war I was in 
San Sebastian, in Spain. I remained there and in Portugal until March of 
1940, when I returned to Paris. ... In April I departed to the south of France 
to wind up some business matters. 

“While I was thus engaged the French Army collapsed. The armistice was 
signed, and I found myself virtually trapped in the free zone of France, where 
by the terms of the armistice outgoing visas were not granted to British subjects 
of military age. I had not ever been called for military service in view of my 
permanent residences being, the one in Madrid, the other in Paris. I therefore 
remained in the South of France, doing nothing except hoping that some 
arrangement would be come to concerning the stopping of the war, all through 
the winter and early summer of 1940-41. 

“In June, 1941, the war with the Soviets broke out. It was my considered 
opinion, and that also of my friends, and notably Doriot and Ddat, 1 that Europe 
was in the greatest peril of a Communist invasion; that this invasion would 
sweep the whole Continent ; and that nothing could stop it unless the different 
countries of Europe pushed through a social revolution which would spike 
the guns of the Communists in their world-wide revolutionary activities. It 
was also our view that the Jewish race was mixed up and working hand-in-glove 
with Moscow. In consequence of this it came as a very great shock to me 
when I heard that England and Soviet Russia had become allies — so much so 
that I thought that the people responsible in London were acting in a manner 
that no longer coincided with British Imperial interests. On this point my 
book England Faces Europe , published in Berlin in June, 1943, gives the whole 
case, as also the general political line I was aiming at. 

“I went therefore to Vichy to see what was going on, determined to do 
what I could to create a situation whereby a united front of all nations might 
be organised against Russia. I found that there was no intention whatsoever 
of carrying out any social revolution — that, in a word, Vichy was an ultra- 
reactionary Government, of priests, the worst type (in my opinion) of French 
industrialists, and militarists. 

“If I did not take kindly to these people, they did not like me either, nor 
did they like Doriot or Ddat. Also in November, 1941, on a frivolous pretext 
(hostage for some French consul arrested by the British in Syria) they took me 
from my bed at three o'clock in the morning and threw me into jail at Vais 
les Bains, where I found myself with Paul Reynaud and Mandel, of all people. 
The united efforts of my friends Jeannine Amery-Barde and Doriot extracted 
me from there after eighteen days. Thereafter I was only allowed to reside 
in the lsfcre. 

“In the county town, Grenoble, and later Paladru I planned what I could 
do usefully. The United States authorities, representing the British interests, 
seemed to find the Russian alliance normal. A little article that I had written 
protesting against the bombardments of civilians by the R.A.F. had brought 
down numerous letters of great displeasure on my head. Neither Doriot nor 
D6at dared enter the Vichy free zone. I was cut off from everyone, including 
England. 

“I decided at this period to attempt to talk to Dino Grandi, previously 
Italian Ambassador in London, to see if Italian diplomacy was not capable 
of organising an end to this kind of civil war between the civilised when the 
barbarians were at the gate. Accordingly I handed a letter to the Italian 

1 Jacques Doriot and Marcel Deat were former Left Wing politicians who had become 
the leaders of the French Fascists and pro-Nazis. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


175 


Consul in Grenoble, Manfredi, suggesting that Grandi might find an interest 
in the European situation generally either to have a meeting with me or arrange 
for one. To this letter I received no reply. In view of this I decided to enlist 
in the Finnish armies, and offered my services to Helsinki, where my skis had 
gone and various other things, in their first anti-Soviet war. I received a 
charming reply, which was a negative as nicely as one could say it. 

“Now it became my turn to be visited by a certain Graf Ceschi, German 
armistice chief for Savoy, whom I had known slightly in Vienna, my opinions 
having probably come to his ears. The suggestion was made that I should go 
to Germany and discuss my point of view with them. I replied that I was willing, 
but that I desired a formal guarantee that I could return without let or hindrance 
should we ^disagree. This he was unable to give me. He used his influence, 
however, to obtain from Vichy permission for me to go among my friend’s 
family near Bergerac (also a free zone), telling me that he would occupy himself 
in attempting to obtain the guarantee I desired. On the 26th September, 1942, 
there arrived in Bergerac a certain Captain Werner, whom I had known in my 
meetings with Ceschi. He gave me the required assurances and we departed 
almost immediately. 

“After a few days in Paris, and travelling under the names of Mr. and Mrs. 
Browne, I arrived in Berlin early in October, 1942, where I began to discuss these 
problems with a certain Dr. Hesse. He had a kind of autonomous situation 
with Minister Schmidt (Hitler’s interpreter). As is well known, there were 
numerous other Englishmen in Berlin, notably William Joyce and his friends, 
and Baillie-Stewart and his. These people had come to Germany on or before 
the declaration of war. Also they had adopted German nationality and con- 
sidered themselves Germans. In consequence their views and outlook widely 
differed from mine. The first depended from the Propaganda Ministry, with 
which I had never had anything to do ; and the second from the Radio Depart- 
ment of the Foreign Office, with whom I had only friendly, but no official, 
relations. 

“It was in my view quite insane to carry on as they did calling the British 
‘the enemy’ and so forth, as was their custom. I told Dr. Hesse perfectly 
frankly that I was not interested in a German victory as such, that what interested 
me was a just peace where we could all get together against the real enemies 
of civilisation, and that the British Empire as it was, intact, must be a part of 
this and not a dependant of such a regroupment; that I was perfectly aware of 
the enormous losses of the Germans of the preceding winter in Russia, as also 
the folly of their policy in Vichy, in Croatia, and elsewhere; that I considered, 
if, as an Englishman, with the collaboration of others, we could speak uncensored 
and uninterfered with in a special British hour on the radio, and they would 
give precise guarantees, at least to us, concerning British Imperial territory, 
and consider their policy as remaining based on the proposals of the German 
Chancellor to the British Government of July, 1940, then we could attempt 
something. 

“In general he was of the opinion that we were asking a very great deal 
without giving any very great assurance of success. He declared to know 
nothing about, and have no interest in, questions not concerning England, 
being uniquely interested in that. He also said that he did not possess the radio, 
which depended on the Propaganda Ministry, and he must inquire into these 
things in detail. He asked me how much I wanted for myself. When I told 
him that, far from wanting anything, I was not disposed to accept anything, 
other than that he considered me as a guest having no resources of my own 
available, he seemed quite taken aback. 

“I therefore waited in Berlin a fortnight for a reply. When I next saw him 
he told me the following — that I could consider myself a guest of the Reich, 
that I could go where I pleased, that he suggested i should make on the radio 



176 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


a series of weekly speeches, which would be officially dissociated from the 
German senders and entirely uncensored. At the end of this time the problem 
would be once more wholly revised, he hoped to my satisfaction. I accepted 
these conditions [and put] the text of these speeches, some ten in number, pre- 
sumably at the readers’ disposal. 

“At the end of this time the situation remained unchanged. I tackled 
Hesse on this subject, pointing out that it was absurd for me as an Englishman 
to talk about us all getting together if, five minutes later, from the same station, 
another Englishman was to yell out abuse of my countrymen. He told me he 
fully realised this, but was powerless. I told him, therefore, that I desired to 
betake myself to Paris to talk these matters over with my French friends, and 
to consider what next might be done in these circumstances. He replied that 
he had already given me his assurance as to my complete liberty, and that he 
would grant me my passports immediately. In consequence, January, 1943, 
found me in Paris. The news from Russia was getting pretty bad, and that in 
France worse — all German-occupied Europe in fact. 

“We were very disturbed. The problem, which amounted to a vicious 
circle, was this. We were partisans of a social revolution and of a getting 
together of all European nations in a Customs union, etc. (see England Faces 
Europe). The Germans, however, were controlling Europe, and instead of 
(Norway excepted) carrying out any social revolution at all they were getting 
in with the reactionaries, and, what was worse, the kind of people who were 
uniquely interested in getting rich quick at anybody’s expense. Moreover, 
they seemed to possess no one who understood the other nations of Europe, 
their people and mentality, and more especially the Latins. This was the rule 
among the Embassies and Army chiefs. Among the S.S. and political police 
(not to be confused with the Sipo and Gestapo) things were individually much 
better, but carried little practical weight, strange as it may seem. On the 
other hand, the only people who were fighting the Soviets seriously were the 
Germans. . . . 

“Doriot’s view was that it was better to go to the front in Russia and to 
make things abundantly clear, ‘and when I come back with the Iron Cross I 
will send this bloody embassy to hell.’ He thought, and I equally, that Vichy 
must *be overthrown, peace made between Germany and France, and an end 
of occupants and occupied, the creation of Europe. D^at’s view leaned more 
to peaceful and continual pressure on Abetz 1 until finally he grasped it. 

“I returned to Berlin, bearing numerous documents of my own, of Deat’s 
and other people, confirming all that we had always said concerning the mad 
foreign policy that was being carried on. I tackled Hesse again. He was a 
man who had never got over the criminal folly of the bombardment of England 
in *40-*41, and he listened patiently to us. I told him that in my view we must 
also create a British anti-Bolshevist Legion, however small, and that perhaps, 
on the things going on in other countries of Europe, it would be possible for 
me to attempt to help some sort of improvement of the situation based on the 
following principle — if England saw that Europe was uniting against Bolshevism, 
she would come in as well. The problem would be shifted away from Germany, 
‘the mad dog of Europe,’ to all collaborating to a common good. 

“On 7-8th April my beloved friend and brave political revolutionary Jeannine 
Barde died. I buried her in her native Bergerac, went to see her child, and 
stayed in France from the 15th April to June, 1943. 

“I paused at St. Denis (civilian internee camp) to test whether there might 
or might not be volunteers for the British Legion. Considering the general 
difficulties, I was impressed by the fact that out of some thirty or forty people 
there were four or five volunteers. But I was too distraught to pay any great 
attention at the time. 

* Otto Abetz was Hitler’s special representative in Paris. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


177 


“Returning to Berlin, I found the British Legion progressing dreadfully 
slowly, blocked for all kinds of technical reasons it would be tedious to go into 
here. I had signed a kind of mobilisation of volunteers proclamation, which 
I had drawn up myself, but I have never known whether this was effectually 
ever used or not. Eventually the S.S. took the whole affair over. Apparently 
a certain Sturm Bahnfuhrer , Vivian Stranders, an Englishman, had a great deal 
to do with this, and, although I had never met him, he had a very great dislike 
of my person. In consequence, I handed my ‘baby’ to the S.S. with my wishes 
of success. 

“The summer passed by. During this time Hesse offered me the control 
of a secret radio station, to be in English for England. But, the whole affair 
having to pass through the Propaganda Ministry and Joyce’s friends, I accepted 
it only to return it without its having, with me, effected a single transmission. 

“In the end of September I returned to Paris. Once more much political 
talk, and on the 4th October I remarried at the German Consulate. Politically 
the situation remained almost unchanged. 

“The 23rd November found me back in Berlin, and that night Berlin was 
bombed to pieces. I was granted a distinction for exceptional bravery in that 
affair, but lost most of my belongings. With Hesse’s consent I set up in Paris 
the next week. Then followed visits to Prague, in January, 1944, and other 
places, including Norway and Belgium. In all this went the Movietone, Press 
conferences, etc., and sometimes radio interviews, as also a visit to the Atlantic 
Wall and Valenciennes. Made innumerable contacts and so forth. 

“In Paris I found a pressing telegram at the end of May asking me to rejoin 
Salzburg. I found Hesse there, displeased at my activities, probably not 
personally, but from Ribbentrop. ... 1 was grieved and surprised, my other 

political friends having been more than contented with these results. Also it 
transpired, after patient inquiry, that in almost every instance every report 
was double — one favourable, one not — depending whether it came from a 
European revolutionary source or a reactionary one. This brought things to 
a standstill. 

“After two days Hesse asked me, ‘in view of the present situation of an 
impending debarkation in France,’ to do anything I liked, but leave France 
to the military. 1 returned to Paris at once, where it became obvious that the 
‘Partisan’ movement which the Germans persisted in considering a police 
problem, was a very serious political factor (we had been saying so for eighteen 
solid months and more). 

“Wondering whether we would ever get to something sensible, and also at 
the desire of my French friends who wished me once again to tackle Berlin, 
I returned there in June, 1944. 1 remained at Haus-am-See, near Berlin, at 
Gatow throughout the Putsch , the disasters west and east, and thought things 
pretty hopeless. At Hesse’s wish I spoke a speech on the radio once more, 
because he said that it was being thought I was a prisoner of the Gestapo . 

“At the end of September I received an invitation from the Italian Govern- 
ment, telling me that Mussolini wished to see me. I set out in the middle of 
October, and saw him on the Lake of Garda at the end of that month. Con- 
trary to what has often been said, he was in the best of health, and we talked 
for several hours. His view was, in brief, that he had made a great mistake in 
1922 in not carrying through what he was now attempting — i.e., to create a 
social republic — but that he was optimistic that this could be done, even with 
the increasing military difficulties, and that once Northern Italy was going 
properly he, who had after all been responsible for organising the Peace of 
Munich, felt himself capable of throwing his whole person into the balance 
and obtaining the peace we had for years been seeking. 

“In this line he asked me to assist him. I consented readily, all the more 
so that he was much more likely to succeed in negotiations where the Germans 



178 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


had so regularly failed. I resumed the Italian situation in an annexe document 
0 rapport de la situation Italienne). In Italy I spoke in Italian to the Italians 
over the republican network, uncensored, and made some speeches in Genoa, 
Turin, Biella, Cremona, and Milan. 

“At last in Italy, with Mussolini’s gathering efforts and his intention to 
set up the Government in Milan, we seemed to be making some practical 
progress. 

“In the end of January the German Ambassador, Rahn, told me that 
Berlin had asked for me urgently. Saying good-bye to Mussolini,, who asked 
me to return as soon as possible, I went to Germany, going to Constanz. From 
there I contacted Berlin, who had never asked for my recall at all. It became 
apparent that this was simply a machination of certain people whose names 
are given in the ‘ Rapport Italian ,’ and, of course, of Rahn. I was to learn here 
of the death of Doriot, whose funeral at Mangen I attended at the end of 
February, 1945. 

“Hesse told me to go back to Italy and tell the Embassy to ‘mind their own 
business.’ To this effect he had me accompanied by the Ritter-Kreuztraeger , 
Dr. Brenner, to Italy. Brenner had some talks with Rahn, which resulted in 
that I could do what I liked, but he, Rahn, would have nothing to do with it. 

“Mussolini had by this time, mid-April, moved definitely to Milan, where 
I saw him on the 23rd April. As is known, the military situation had so 
degenerated by this time that his view was that there remained only to betake 
ourselves to the mountains, where a great stock of food, munitions, radio 
apparatus, etc., was to be laid in the area Como, following the winding Swiss 
border to the Stelvio and coming down in front of Bergamo to Lecco and Como 
again. It was, he said, to be purely defensive, ‘to show the world that there 
were a sufficient number of idealists who were willing to sacrifice a great deal 
to obtain a general anti-Communist front, but who would never surrender 
unconditionally or to the local Communists.’ f 

“In accordance with this suggestion he offered me a commission in the 
‘Brigade Nera.’ I told him that I could not accept that, because such an 
acceptance might involve me in firing on my fellow-countrymen, and this I was 
unwilling to do, but that I would certainly go with him and address myself 
in a manner that my opinions should be unmistakable. 

“He thought the front might hold three or four weeks on the Po, and seemed 
in no hurry to abandon Milan, although it was my opinion and that of others 
that the defence of Milan was not very practicable. In any event, I decided 
to go over to Como to have a look round and see what was happening there. 
In accordance with that 1 left Milan on the night of the 25th, and two-thirds 
of the way along the autostrada to Como I was surrounded by Partisans and 
made prisoner. On my insistence they finally consented to hand me over to 
the British authorities 1 . The rest is known. 

“What has been set out above is through lack of documents naturally not 
checked to the day. Moreover, journeys of pure information that I made to 
Russia and elsewhere are not given, as are many subsidiary and less important 
things, in order that a short, concise document might be presented, giving the 
general view of what I had done. 

“I particularly want to draw attention to the fact that I defy anyone to find 
in my speeches, radio or otherwise, my conversations in private and of what I 
have written, one single, solitary word against my country. ... On the 
contrary ! 

“Moreover, before even considering to explain to Hesse the British Legion 
proposal, it was definitely agreed that this should be exclusively anti-Bolshevist, 

1 According to British sources in Milan, Amery objected strongly to being handed 
over to his countrymen. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


179 


and never on any account used on any other but the Russian front, and there 
on that part of the front where the presence also of Estonian, Lettish, Latvian, 
and Finnish troops was in existence. Therefore this action of mine was at all 
times Socialist and anti-Bolshevist, guided by the certainty that Russia was a 
far greater danger to England than Germany, as she stood at the end of 1942. 
This is idle to pursue. The conception has collapsed in the military defeat 
of one side of the supposed alliance, most of my friends are dead, and I am a 
prisoner in jail. As also Prince Borghese and many others who were, without 
being Fascist or National-Socialist, lined up in the anti-Communist front. 

“Throughout Europe, which I know very well, and four of whose languages 
I speak, I have innumerable friends who also are resolutely anti-Communist 
and in these circles, eight years’ fighting against Communism has given me both 
influence and weight. 

“Considering (unless time proves all the anti-Communists to have been 
insane) that Russia and her Communist satellites will prove a great danger to 
the civilised world, and to the British Empire in particular, before very many 
months have gone by ; considering also the massacres these people have indulged 
in to my certain knowledge in Milan (prior to the arrival of Allied troops), 
in Trieste and throughout the Balkans; considering that their whole policy, 
far from seeking liberty, is to install a most bloodthirsty dictatorship, that the 
Prime Minister, prior to 1941, has frequently and eloquently denounced; may 
I be permitted to suggest to the political and intelligence departments of His 
Majesty’s Government that in some form or other I can still carry on my life’s 
political work and render very considerable services to my country ? 

“Whether I do this in my own name or in some fictitious one, whether it 
should be now or when events prove me right and the tension has increased 
with Russia, does not matter very much. What matters to us is that civilisation 
should not be utterly destroyed and mankind relive a period worse than the 
Middle Ages. What remains of anti-Communist forces that fought with 
Germany and Italy is still very considerable, and among the best of the young 
generation. This can greatly serve for the maintenance of peace in Europe 
and its defence. 

“Germany opposed Bolshevism for four years, so now the only thing that 
stands between the Bolshevisation of Europe and its safeguard are British and 
American armies. In consequence, with them we shall be more than happy 
to continue the fight that commenced in Seville in June, 1936, and which has 
continued to this day. 

“The very great majority of my belongings, diaries (that I greatly need to 
prove various happenings in the period heretofore given), and other documents 
still remain in the hands of the Local Liberation Committee, Via Piave 8, 
Milan. My entire luggage these people seized in the Hotel Diana (Milan) 
during my absence and took to their office. They seemed not very inclined to 
return it. Moreover, the colonel commanding the Piazza de Milano, who 
brought me from Sorrogno to Milan, undertook at the time to have returned 
my property that was seized by the Partisans when they arrested me. Of this 
nothing has so far been seen. It consists of one suitcase (important documents 
and personal effects), one overcoat, one fur coat and two silver foxes, a 20-litre 
petrol tin full, one Lancia Aprilia motor-car, No. 78410.” 

There certainly seemed little to be said for the Defence after this statement 
had been read, but Mr. Lickfold, Amery’s solicitor, assured the Chief Magistrate 
that his client had a complete answer to the charge and wished always to 
emphasise that he had never sought to injure the British Empire. Amery was 
then committed to the Old Bailey. 

When the next sessions began, however, the Defence applied for an adjourn- 
ment, and it became known that Amery was now claiming to be a naturalised 



180 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Spanish subject: the documentary evidence of this, it was explained, might 
take some time to collect. At the October sessions the application was repeated. 
Mr. Slade, who had been briefed to defend him, told the Judge, “On information 
given to me, Amery became a naturalised Spanish subject in the course of the 
Spanish Civil War.” He added that relatives were at the moment making 
inquiries there. So it was not until the 28th November that Amery appeared 
at the Old Bailey to stand his trial. 

Then an astonishing thing happened. Mr. Slade, who was to defend him, 
was called down into the cells to see his client. The Judge, Mr. Justice 
Humphreys, waited for an hour before entering the court. When he did so, 
Amery was brought into the dock and listened attentively to the reading of the 
indictment, which contained eight counts. Then he paused for a few moments 
and said, “I plead Guilty to all counts.” 

The Judge asked Mr. Slade if Amery really understood what he was doing, 
and what the inevitable result must be. Mr. Slade said, “I can assure you of 
that, my Lord. I have explained the position to my client, and 1 am satisfied 
that he understands it.” 

It meant, of course, the death penalty, without any right of appeal to a higher 
court : evidently there had been no substance in the suggestion of prior Spanish 
citizenship. 

Mr. Justice Humphreys then said, “John Amery, I have read the depositions 
and exhibits in this case and I am satisfied that you knew what you did, and that 
you did it intentionally and deliberately after you had received warnings from 
more than one of your fellow-countrymen that the course you were pursuing 
amounted to high treason. They called you a traitor and you heard them; 
but in spite of that you continued in that course. You now stand a self- 
confessed traitor to your King and country, and you have forfeited your right 
to live.” 

He then passed sentence of death on Amery, who was hanged at Wands- 
worth Jail on the 29th December, 1945. His trial at the Old Bailey lasted only 
eight minutes. 

It would appear that, recognising that his case was hopeless, he wished to 
spare his family the infamy of a protracted trial : if so, he certainly showed a 
degree of courage. 


(3) Frank Axon 

Axon, a driver in the Royal Army Service Corps, was captured at Corinth 
in 1941, taken to a prison camp in Germany and released from it in March 1945 
to join the “British Free Corps.” He served in this for only six weeks, but 
assisted other German units against the Russian advance. 

He was sentenced by a Chelsea court-martial on the 9th January, 1946, to 
two years’ hard labour. 


(4) Norman Baillie - Stewart 

This trial at the Old Bailey in January 1946, was in some ways the strangest 
of the whole series. To the man in the street Baillie-Stewart was notorious as 
the Seaforth Highlander subaltern who as far back as 1933 (when he was in 
his early twenties) had been court-martialled and sentenced to five years’ penal 
servitude for selling military secrets to Germany — and pre-Nazi Germany at 
that. And now he had been openly broadcasting for the Nazis in Berlin and 
elsewhere all through the war. Yet the Prosecution, having charged him with 
high treason and with offences against the Defence Regulations, was found to be 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


181 


ready to drop the treason charge; and the Judge, Mr. Justice Oliver, concurred 
in this decision. The man in the street was puzzled, but the reason for this 
clemency was clear enough. 

It was that he had abjured his British citizenship long before the war : in 
1939 he no longer pretended to give allegiance to the Crown, and the Crown 
most certainly had ceased to regard him as a person entitled to its protection. 
He had applied for German naturalisation nearly two years before the start of 
the war — he went to Germany and Austria immediately after his release from 
prison in January 1937— and, one gathers, it was only because a German 
Ministry mislaid his papers (just as Ministries do everywhere) that the final 
granting of his application was delayed until 1940 or 1941. Technically, to be 
sure, this delay meant that he was still a British subject in 1939; but morally, 
as Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General, pointed out, he had ceased to 
be one from 1938. 

He pleaded Guilty to the offences against the regulations. Much of the 
evidence against him, by the way, was discovered in his Hat in Vienna, where the 
Russians had looted everything of value but left his documents intact. The 
difficulty was to know what to do with him. The Judge, on the assumption 
that he was now in law a German subject by naturalization, suggested that he 
might enter into a recognizance to leave England at once and go back to 
Germany; but the Attorney-General explained that the Allied Control Com- 
mission considered his present return extremely undesirable. So, after a day’s 
adjournment, he was somewhat illogically sentenced to five years’ imprisonment : 
doubtless he will be released and sent out of the country as soon as conditions 
permit. 

A foolish rumour spread in some circles that Baillie-Stewart was treated with 
leniency because he was really an English master-spy: the whole of his former 
trial and his activities since his release, it was whispered, were part of a mar- 
vellous trick played by the British Secret Service on the innocent and trustful 
Germans. There is not a vestige of truth, or of sense, in this silly chatter. 
Baillie-Stewart was, and remains, the most contemptible of all this brood of 
offenders. 


(5) Margaret Frances Botha ml ey 

At the end of March 1946, this 67-year-old woman pleaded Guilty at the 
Old Bailey to entering the German radio service during the War, broadcasting 
for it and preparing propaganda for broadcasting. The Prosecution, who 
stated that she was born in London of English parents, agreed that she had 
remained loyal in one sense to her native country, in that all the time she was 
working for the Germans she hung pictures of the King and Queen in her 
German apartment. She was, however, obsessed with anti-Bolshevist views. 

According to her own statement she had married a German many years 
ago, but this could not be verified and she had certainly never claimed to be 
anything but a British subject. She was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment, 
but in the first division — a very unusual concession in these days. 


(6) Elsa Gertrude Brietzmann 

This woman pleaded Guilty at the Old Bailey on the 20th March, 1946, to 
assisting the German wireless service during the War as, first, a typist and, 
later, an announcer. In the second capacity she broadcast to India on the 
theme of “the hated British regime,” inviting her listeners to play their part in 
the “Great Indian Revolution” and “to unite to deliver a crushing blow to 
British Imperialism.” 



182 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Hers was, however, an exceptional case. She was bom at Brighton in 1911 
and was thus a British-born British subject; but her father was a German who 
was interned here in the 1914-18 War, never renounced his German nationality 
and called his daughter to Germany in 1923, when she was twelve. She thus 
became a person of dual nationality, owing allegiance in various degrees to 
both England and Germany. After the German collapse in 1945 she came 
back to England, but was not arrested until several months had passed. 

Mr. Justice Hilbery, taking the unusual circumstances into consideration, 
and also the fact that she had not taken part in any subversive movement in 
England since her return, bound her over in her own recognizances to be of good 
behaviour for two years. 


(7) Thomas Haller Cooper 

This young man, aged 26, formerly a London clerk, was brought up at the 
Old Bailey early in January 1946, charged with high treason in Germany and 
occupied Europe between the first day of 1940 and the 30th April, 1945. 

The Attorney-General, prosecuting, said that Cooper was bom in London 
of an English father and a German mother and joined the British Union of 
Fascists when he was nineteen. In July 1939, he went to Germany with his 
mother and began to teach languages; at the outbreak of war two months 
later he was arrested by the Nazis but was released at his mother’s request. 
For the next few months he acted as tutor to the son of a German official, 
after which he was enlisted in the Adolf Hitler Division of the Waffen S.S. and 
served in Poland, and afterwards in Russia, where he was wounded. Leaving 
hospital in June 1943, he was asked by the German Foreign Office to compile 
a pamphlet for distribution to British prisoners of war; in fact he wrote two 
and received 100 marks for them. 

At one prisoner-of-war camp he told a British quartermaster-sergeant that 
he had left England in 1939 because he had killed or badly injured a Jew in 
the East End, and he also boasted that he had killed some Russian prisoners 
of war. In August 1943, he became naturalized as a German, and then tried 
to persuade British prisoners to join Amery’s “Legion of St. George” and its 
successor, the “British Free Corps.” After D-Day, however, he changed his 
tune and told British prisoners that he had been a fool. 

His defence was the usual story that he had sought throughout to act in 
British interests and, by pretending to be pro-German, to obtain useful informa- 
tion for the British military authorities. It was in the circumstances a story 
which no jury could accept, and the Old Bailey jury did not accept it. Cooper 
was thereupon condemned to death ; his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal 
was quickly dismissed. 

The reprieve of Purdy (sec below), which was announced at this time, gave 
Cooper’s relatives hope that his life too might be spared. A curious feature of 
his case emerged at the trial : it was that he was in many ways more German 
than English. He certainly spoke German more correctly than his father’s 
language, and his whole bearing was more Teutonic than Cockney. In the end 
he was reprieved on the 19th February, 1946, and will presumably spend many 
years in prison. 


(8) Ray Nicholas Courlander 

Lance-Corporal Courlander of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force was 
court-martialled at Westgate in October 1945, for voluntarily aiding the enemy 
while a prisoner of war by broadcasting and joining the British Free Corps 
and the S.S. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 183 

He was captured by British troops in Brussels, in September 1944, wearing 
the uniform of a S.S. war-reporter. 

A witness named Freeman, a commando, said that Courlander told him 
that Thomas Cooper (see above) was to be the Fiihrer and he (Courlander) 
the Deputy Fiihrer of the British Free Corps, which was intended to become 
the future army of Great Britain. Another witness, Private Rose, said that 
uniforms for the British Free Corps reached a prisoners’ camp at Hildesheim 
on the 1st April, 1944, but — in view of the unpropitious date — were not handed 
out till the next day. It was then found that the uniforms were German, and 
thirty men who had been drafted to, or volunteered for, the Corps refused to 
wear them. 

In his defence Courlander claimed that, if only he could have had the 
assistance of forty determined men, he could have captured the Berlin radio- 
station during the “Generals’ revolt,” of July 1944. A statement by him was 
put in, which said that John Amery was to be a member of a Provisional 
Government for Great Britain to be -set up in the Channel Islands as soon as 
1 ,500 prisoners had joined the British Free Corps. 

Courlander was sentenced to fifteen years’ penal servitude. 


(9) Hugh Wilson Cowie 

This man of twenty-seven, a private in the Gordon Highlanders attached 
to the Corps of Military Police, was sentenced to fifteen years’ penal servitude 
by an Aldershot court-martial in January 1946 for aiding the enemy by joining 
the “British Free Corps.” He put up the defence that he joined the Corps 
with the patriotic intention of sabotaging it and escaping from Germany with 
information useful to the British military authorities ; but he was not believed. 


(10) Frederick Arthur Croft 

A gunner in the Royal Artillery, Croft was captured by the Germans in 
Libya in April 1941. After attempting (so he said) to escape no fewer than 
seven times, he joined the “British Free Corps,” and was sent to Stettin to 
fight the Russians. 

He was sentenced by a Chelsea court-martial in January 1946 to six months’ 
detention. 


(11) Patrick Joseph Dillon 

This man, a Clydeside Irishman, went with his parents to Canada in 1935, 
when he was twenty-eight years old. Two years later he went to New York 
and there, at the outbreak of war, he tried (so he said) to enlist in the British 
forces but, failing in this, shipped as a fireman on board the S.S. Brisbane , 
which was sunk by a German submarine on the 20th November, 1940, when he 
was taken prisoner. 

In March 1943, he told the senior British officer in the camp where he was 
held that he was going to take a job on the staff of the Germans’ propaganda 
newspaper in English, The Camp, The officer asked him if he realized what 
he was doing, and Dillon replied cheerfully that he was quite capable of looking 
after his own business. He then managed to get himself attached to the Irish 
section of the German propaganda system at a monthly salary of 600 marks. 
His conduct was, however, unsatisfactory and the Germans sent him to a farm 
camp. When he was arrested, he said, “I don’t consider myself a British subject 
or as owing allegiance to Great Britain.” 



184 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


Since he was fortunate enough to be charged only with offences against 
the Defence Regulations, to which he pleaded Guilty, he escaped at the Old 
Bailey with a sentence of ten years’ penal servitude. He appealed against this, 
but the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, telling him, reasonably 
enough, that on the evidence he might well have been indicted for high treason 
and hanged. 


(12) Frances Dorothy Eckersley and James Royston Clark 

Mrs. Eckersley, a woman of fifty-one, and her son, aged twenty-two, pleaded 
Guilty at the Old Bailey in December 1945, to aiding the enemy, contrary to 
the Defence Regulations. 

The Prosecution stated that the two went to Germany in 1935 (when the 
boy was only twelve) and each summer thereafter, and were in Berlin when the 
war broke out. Mrs. Eckersley was an ardent pro-Nazi — she wrote in 1937 
with rapture that “1 gazed upon Hitler” — and, meeting William Joyce in the 
autumn of 1939, she decided to stay in Germany. In December of that year 
the Germans engaged her for twenty marks a day (“I was delighted, as I was 
desperate for marks”) to become an announcer on their wireless. She did 
in fact announce Joyce, Baillie-Stewart and other British speakers. 

When she was arrested, she said, “It seems comic that anything I’ve done 
should be so tremendous,” and, when formally charged at Bow Street, she said, 
“I’m bowled over by the wording. I never did anything to help the enemy. 
I only did it to get our bread and butter. What 1 did didn’t help the enemy 
one ha’porth.” 

Clark also made a statement in which he said, “I appreciate that my broad- 
casts were entirely anti-British, but I had at that time no objection to this, as 
I was still in the hysterical state of mind which had been fostered by the Nazis.” 
He went on to state that the news of air-raids on England brought him to his 
senses, and from 1941 he had struggled to get free from the Germans. 

Mr. Justice Humphreys said, “Frances Dorothy Eckersley, before the war 
started there can be no question that you were a pronounced pro-Nazi and an 
admirer of that man who is now dead. You gave yourself wholeheartedly 
to the Germans. You were perfectly willing to, and did, assist in the propa- 
ganda which you yourself describe as propaganda against England,” and he 
sentenced her, most leniently, to one year’s hard labour. 

To her son, whom he bound over for two years, he said, “I do not believe 
that you are at heart or ever have been a traitor. You were caught up with 
many others in that abominable, clever and insidious propaganda embodied 
in the tenets of the Nazi youth organisation.” He hoped that this appearance 
in the dock at the Old Bailey would not be held against Clark in the future and 
that he would now embark on an honourable career. 


(13) Benson Railton Metcalf Freeman 

Freeman, a 42-year-old pilot-officer in the R.A.F., was sentenced to ten 
years* penal servitude and to be cashiered by a court-martial at Uxbridge, in 
August 1945, for having, as a prisoner of war, served in the Waffen S.S . , and 
written broadcasting scripts for the Germans at a salary of 200 marks a week. 


(14) Arthur Vincent Fryer 

This man was court-martialled in London, in October 1945, on, charges 
of “voluntarily aiding the enemy, in that in Germany between the 1st November, 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


185 


1942, and the 5th April, 1945, having been made a prisoner of war, he volun- 
tarily gave assistance and information to the enemy concerning fellow prisoners 
of war.” 

It was stated that Fryer, a driver in the Royal Artillery, was wounded and 
captured at Boulogne in May 1940. The Germans asked him to write a report 
on the attitude of men confined with him in a working camp in a stone quarry ; 
he did so and mentioned three of them by name as being specially hostile to 
the Germans. He said that “They spend their time plotting how they can 
escape” and, of one of them, that “He put forth a plan to bum the dwellings 
down. He wanted to perpetrate all manner of sabotage on the works.” And 
Fryer added a request to have himself moved from the camp. 

Unfortunately for him, however, the report, was lent by a German corporal 
to one of the other prisoners, and passed it on by him to the senior British 
officer, who copied it. 

Fryer’s explanation to the Court was that he was trying to ingratiate himself 
with the Germans in order to gather information which would assist the Allied 
forces when they invaded Germany ; also that, for the sake of the rest of the 
prisoners in the camp, he was willing to sacrifice the three men he betrayed. 

He was sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude. 


(15) William Humphrey Griffiths 

Griffiths, a Welsh Guardsman, aged thirty-four, was sentenced by a court- 
martial in England to seven years’ penal servitude on the 31st October, 1945, 
for voluntarily aiding the enemy while a prisoner of war by broadcasting. 
He said in mitigation of his offence that he protested to the Germans against 
having to do this work, whereupon they spoke of sending him to a concentration 
camp and William Joyce threatened his life. 


(16) Gerald Percy Sandys Hewitt 

This man appeared at the Old Bailey in March 1945, charged, under the 
Defence Regulations, with assisting the enemy. He was a teacher of languages, 
forty-four years of age, twenty-six of which had been spent in France. Accord- 
ing to his own story, he was living in Paris when the Germans invaded France 
in 1940, but managed to escape to the South; in the winter of the following 
year, wishing to return to his Paris flat, he “approached the Germans in Lyons 
and struck a bargain with them” : he and his mother were to be allowed to return 
to Paris on condition that he did anti -Communist — but not, he insisted, anti- 
British — propaganda for the Germans. After a short stay in Paris he went 
to Berlin; but, becoming disillusioned with the Nazis, he tried to escape and, 
after being turned back on the Swiss frontier, gave himself up to the British 
troops in France. 

The Prosecution, on the other hand, said he had remained without complaint 
in the Germans’ service — writing and recording propagandist scripts against 
all the Allies (not merely the Russians) — at a salary of from 20,000 to 25,000 
francs a month — until the summer of 1944, when the liberation of France 
gave a different turn to his ideas. A letter to his mother from Berlin was 
quoted in which he informed her that the civilians there were “calm, splendid 
and cheerful. There is nothing of that hysteria which passes as patriotism in 
England.” 

Mr. Justice Macnaghton commented, “When you thought that your native 
land and your adopted country were both bound to fall, you treated with 
Germany. You decided to throw in your lot with those whom you expected 



186 THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

to be victorious. You sold yourself and your country and the country of your 
adoption to the enemy.” He then sentenced Hewitt to twelve years' penal 
servitude. 


(17) Raymond Davis Hughes 

A warrant-officer air-gunner in the R.A.F., aged twenty-two, from Mold, 
Flintshire, this man was court-martialled at Uxbridge in August 1945 for aiding 
the enemy by asking fellow prisoners of war to give the Germans information 
about R.A.F. formations; making three propaganda records for broadcasting; 
lending money to persons engaged in forming the British Free Corps; and 
accepting employment from the German Foreign Office and broadcasting 
authorities. 

Two German witnesses were brought to England to identify him, and it 
was stated that he was shot down in a raid on Peenemunde in August 1943; 
the Russians liberated him in April 1945. His defence was that he was forcibly 
taken by the Germans to Amery and Baillie-Stewart and intimidated by them 
into serving the enemy. 

He was sentenced to five years’ penal servitude and to be ignominiously 
discharged from the Service. 


(18) Reginald Arthur Humphries 

This seaman from H.M.S. Royal Arthur , twenty-nine years old, appeared 
at the Old Bailey in December 1945 on charges of assisting the enemy by 
broadcasting from Germany between the 1st July, 1943, and April 1945, 
contrary to the Defence Regulations. He broadcast in the name of “Father 
Donovan” and “Dr. Jeffreys.” Sentencing him to five years penal servitude, 
Mr, Justice Humphreys said, “You were one of those people who, finding 
themselves in an internment camp, were ready to do anything to get out of it. 
You were ready to betray your country, and you did it.” 


(19) Dennis John Leister 

According to his own statement, Leister, who was twenty-three years old 
and a member of the Peace Pledge Union, went to Jersey from England to avoid 
military service. When the Germans occupied the Channel Islands he worked 
for them, then escaped but was recaptured and sent to Berlin where, in July 1944, 
he joined the “British Free Corps.” Eventually he escaped to Italy with a 
German girl and was arrested there by the Americans. He was tried at the 
Old Bailey with Alfred Minchin and others (see below) for joining the enemy’s 
forces, pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude. 


(20) John Lingshaw 

A Channel Islander, Lingshaw was charged at the Old Bailey in February 
1946 with conspiracy to assist the enemy and with doing acts with intent to 
assist the enemy. Lord Goddard, the newly appointed Lord Chief Justice, 
directed the jury to acquit him of the conspiracy charge ; but he was sentenced 
to five years’ penal servitude on the other. 

Some time after being transported to Germany after the occupation of 
the Islands in 1940, Lingshaw had voluntarily entered the German broadcasting 
service and made recordings of British news bulletins. 



187 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 

(21) Francis George McLardy 

This Liverpool-born man, whose name was often mentioned at trials of 
members of the British Free Corps,” was a sergeant in the Royal Army Medical 
it . clv H a pharmacist, he had been a member of the 

Bn 1 tl ± Uni P n of Fascists from 1 934 to 1 938. He was captured by the Germans 
m 1940 and sent to work m a prisoner-of-war hospital in Poland. To improve 
his conditions he made a written request to join the Waffcn S.S . , explaining 
that he wished to fight the Bolshevists. In consequence he was entrusted with 
a handful of others, with the formation of the “Legion of St. George,” which 
later became the “British Free Corps.” Afterwards he applied to join the S.S. 
medical corps and was employed by the German broadcasting service. 

In view of the very prominent part he had played in forming the Free Corps 
and seducing other prisoners of war into it, he was not altogether unfortunate 
in receiving a life sentence of penal servitude from a Chester court-martial in 
January 1946. 


(22) Edwin Martin, John Galaher and George Hale 

These three privates in the Essex Scottish Regiment of the Canadian Army 
were captured in the abortive raid on Dieppe. Martin, who was twenty-six, 
and Galaher, who was twenty-four, were natives of Ontario, but Hale, who was 
twenty-four, came from Vassar, Michigan, in the United States. They were 
court-martialled at Famborough in Hampshire in August and September 1945 
for acting as informers while prisoners of war and voluntarily joining the British 
Free Corps. 

Galaher’s trial was heard in camera because the evidence disclosed details 
of the organisation whereby military intelligence was sent back to England 
from prisoners of war in Germany during the war. He was sentenced to life 
imprisonment. 

In respect of Martin, it was shown that he was transferred by the Germans 
in March 1944 in civilian clothes and with a storm-trooper’s pass from a 
prisoner of war camp to the British Free Corps training camp at Hildesheim. 
After three months there he was issued with a Death’s-head cap and a S.S. 
uniform with a Union Jack round the right arm and a “British Free Corps” 
flash. He was then given the task of training new recruits for the Corps, in which 
he was to be one of the “Big Six.” The work would not seem to have been 
very onerous, for apparently he had only about fifteen companions. 

His defence now was that he had joined the Corps in the hope of disrupting 
it. But in an earlier statement he had said, “l wish the Germans had shot me 
rather than be in the present position. I didn’t intend to tell you about the 
money” which he had received from the Germans for his services, “but you 
seemed to guess and know everything already.” 

He admitted that he had been in contact with the Irish department of the 
German Foreign Office. When he complained to Hughes ( see above) that he 
had been forced to join the “British Free Corps,” Hughes said it was just as well, 
because otherwise the Germans were preparing unpleasant surprises for him. 

Martin was found Guilty and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. 

Hale, whose grandmother was a German, agreed that he used to go out from 
a camp for convalescent prisoners of war with a friendly German officer (who 
oddly enough, Hale pretended, knew all about the grandmother) to various beer- 
gardens; his purpose was, he said, to pick up useful information ! This officer, 
however, who was known to him as “South American Joe,” made him drunk 
and one day persuaded him to put on civilian clothes to be photographed, 
and this had misled witnesses into thinking that he was enjoying favours from 
the Germans. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment 



188 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


(23) Alfred Vivian Minchin, Herbert George Rowlands, 
Ronald David Barker and Kenneth Edward 
Berry 

These men were charged at Bow Street in December 1945 with being con- 
cerned with “John Amery, Thomas Haller Cooper, Eric Pleasants and others 
unknown” in joining the “British Free Corps.” All four were merchant seamen. 

Minchin was one of the (very few) men whom Cooper (see above) managed 
to seduce from a prisoner-of-war camp into Amery ’s “Legion of St. George” ; 
Minchin claimed that he was responsible for its change of name to the “British 
Free Corps.” 

Rowlands, the eldest of the party — he was thirty-seven — claimed to have 
fought as a Communist in the Spanish Civil War. 

Barker, an Australian, was captured by the Germans at sea in 1941. He 
said he was offered three thousand marks and “a good time” to join the 
“British Free Corps” and fight against the Russians ; but when he was being 
sent to the Russian Front he shammed ill and eventually escaped. 

Berry, captured in September 1940, felt an equal reluctance to carry out 
military duties and surrendered to the Russians in March 1945, a few days after 
being sent to a Panzer regiment in the East. His story that he had been com- 
pelled by the brutal Germans to join the “British Free Corps” was disproved 
by the production of a letter he wrote to John Amery from Dresden in November 
1944, as follows : 

Dear Sir, — I am writing a few lines and hope you receive them. Well, 
Mr. Amery, it is a long time since I saw or heard from you last, and I 
sometimes wonder how you are getting on. I hope you are in good health. 
I see in the French papers that you were wounded and I am glad to know 
that you have recovered. 

I am still in the “British Free Corps” and we expect to go up to the front 
in two weeks’ time. I do not think there is anything in it. We are doing 
pioneer training for the past six weeks and I like it very much. I speak 
a lot of German now so 1 can tell a few where to get off. 

The sentences passed on these men at the Old Bailey in February 1946, 
when they all pleaded Guilty to offences against the Defence Regulations, 
were: 

Minchin: seven years’ penal servitude. 

Rowlands : two years’ hard labour. 

Barker : two years’ hard labour. 

Berry: nine months’ hard labour. 


(24) Walter Purdy 

A former member of the British Union of Fascists, Walter Purdy, aged 
twenty-seven, was brought up at the Old Bailey on 18th December, 1945, on 
charges of high treason. After being captured at Narvik, where he was 
serving as a junior engineer in H.M.S. Vandyke , he became an “enthusiastic 
broadcaster” for the Germans under the name of “Pointer,” though he was 
also known to the Germans as “Wallace.” He broadcast until March 1944 
from a station called “Radio National,” which pretended to be in England; 
typical of the titles of his broadcasts were “The Air Racket” and “Jewish 
Profiteering in War.” Other charges against him were that he betrayed to the 
Germans information about a secret wireless-set and a tunnel in a prisoner- 
of-war camp where he was confined, and that he wrote and distributed anti- 
Allied pamphlets to his companions. 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


189 


Purdy was an exhibitionist. In the midst of his career in Germany, he did 
not hesitate to tell a senior British officer in one of the prisoner-of-war camps 
that, “I’ve been behaving like a rat and a traitor” and, on his return to England, 
he wrote a long confession of his activities and handed it to a casual friend to 
keep. When arrested, he was asked his birthplace, and replied, “Barking and 
true British, and never would be anything else.” 

In his defence Purdy declared, as most of his kidney did, that he had really 
been playing a double game. When he broadcast, he said, he tried to indicate 
by the tone in which he said “Good night” that it was a good night for the 
R.A.F. to bomb Germany. He explained also that he had written to his mother 
that he had “learned 200 ways of cooking and serving potatoes” — thus indicating 
the wave-length (200 metres) on which he was broadcasting — in order that she 
should take the letter to the authorities ; indeed, she did so, but the authorities 
never showed any gratitude to Purdy. He said also that he had used his freedom in 
Berlin to do sabotage there during air-raids, such as throwing bottles of petrol into 
the broadcasting buildings; that he had stolen drawings from the German 
Admiralty; and that he had twice tried to kill William Joyce. On the first 
occasion, according to his story, he put a hand-grenade and booby-trap in Joyce’s 
room, but he removed it because he was not certain that Joyce would be the 
person to open the door which would set it off ; and, on the second, he placed 
three grenades in a suitcase beside Joyce in a train and pulled the string to set 
them off, but the grenades failed to explode. There is no reason to suppose 
that there was a single grain of truth in this defence. 

He was sentenced to death by Mr. Justice Humphreys on the 21st December, 
1945, after a four-day trial, and his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was 
dismissed. A few days, however, before the date fixed for his execution he was 
most unexpectedly reprieved and his sentence commuted to life imprison- 
ment. 


(25) Theodore John William Schurch 

This man, a 27-year-old private in the Royal Army Service Corps, was 
court-martialled at Chelsea in September 1945 on nine charges of treachery 
and one of desertion with intent to join the enemy. It was alleged against him 
that in Africa he tried to join a front-line unit in order to desert to the enemy; 
he was in fact captured at Tobruk, whereupon he asked his Italian guards to 
put him in touch with their Intelligence. He now claimed to be a Swiss subject, 
and said that, when he was born in London in 1918 he was registered by his 
father as a Swiss. He had joined the army in 1936, he said, on instructions 
from the British Union of Fascists, to which he belonged. 

He was found Guilty on all ten charges, sentenced to death, and hanged on 
the 5th January, 1946. 


(26) Ronald Spillman 

This lance-corporal, aged twenty-four, from Mare Street, Hackney, London, 
was court-martialled in November 1945 for broadcasting for the enemy after 
being captured in Crete. He admitted that he began his captivity by currying 
favour with the Germans with a report on the activities of his fellow prisoners. 
Then he entered the German broadcasting service and was paid the equivalent 
of £1 a day for writing four scripts a week. He said that he at first “fell for 
the Nazis’ propaganda and “when I came to my senses, it was too late to back 
out” ; moreover, he wished to stay at liberty in Berlin because he had become 
friendly with a girl, Brigitte Meyer. He was sentenced to seven years penal 
servitude. 



190 


THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


(27) Henry Alfred Symonds 

This youth — he was only twenty-one at the time of his trial and had given 
a false age in 1941 when he joined the Princess Louise Kensington Rifles — was 
found Guilty by a court-martial in Cheshire on the 31st January, 1946, of 
voluntarily aiding the enemy while a prisoner of war. He admitted serving 
in the “British Free Corps” for about fifteen months; he said that, after his 
capture in Italy in 1943, he was approached by a Captain Williams who told 
him that the British and the Bolshevists would soon be fighting each other and 
that the Free Corps, which was “six divisions strong,” would join forces against 
the Red enemy. Symonds found that actually the Free Corps consisted at that 
time of its commanders (The “Big Six”), himself and one other man. He added 
that he joined the Corps in the name of “Harry Davies” because his real 
name might sound Jewish : in fact most of the volunteers, then and later, used 
pseudonyms for obvious reasons. 

The Court was not impressed by Symonds ’s defence and sentenced him to 
fifteen years’ penal imprisonment — one year for every month’s treachery. 


(28) Pearl Joyce Vardon 

This thirty-year-old Jersey schoolteacher pleaded Guilty at the Old Bailey 
in February 1946 to assisting the enemy by broadcasting. Apparently she fell 
in love with a German officer in the forces which occupied the island in 1940, 
remained there with him till 1943, working for German contractors, and then 
agreed to go with him to Germany as a radio announcer. 

She was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. 


(29) John Eric Wilson 

A former member of a Commando unit, Wilson, who came from Blackpool, 
was sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude by a court-martial at Chelsea 
barracks on the 21st January, 1946, for voluntarily joining the “British Free 
Corps,” from a prisoner-of-war camp in Germany. 


Two other cases, rather more distant in time, may be mentioned here, 
although, since they were tried in camera during the war, few facts can be given. 


(30) Dorothy Pamela O’Grady 

This woman, who lived at Sandown, Isle of Wight, was sentenced to death 
at the Old Bailey after being found guilty of two offences under the Treachery 
Act. Her conviction, however, was quashed by the Court Of Criminal Appeal 
in February 1941, but a sentence of fourteen years’ penal servitude was passed 
on her by that Court for offences against the Defence Regulations of which 
also she had been convicted at her trial 



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JOYCE 


191 


(31) George Johnson Armstrong 

Armstrong, a ship’s engineer from Newcastle, aged thirty-eight, was 
sentenced to death by Mr. Justice Lewis at the Old Bailey on the 8th May, 1941, 
and hanged, for two offences under the Treachery Act. He had put himself 
in touch with German consuls in various ports where his ship called and even 
gone specially to sea in order to provide them with information about British 
convoys and similar matters of interest to the enemy. 


THE END